Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Mid Southern Utility Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

North-Eastern Electric Supply Bill, South Staffordshire Water Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ATTACK ON ARMORIES, CHITTAGONG.

Mr. MOLSON: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the police had any information in advance of the raid on Chittagong in April, 1930; and, if so, why were adequate preventive measures not taken?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The police had information of activities on the part of members of terrorist gangs which led them to suspect that an outrage was being planned. On the strength of this information a general search was arranged to take place on the 20th April, but it was forestalled by the terrorists carrying out the raid on the night of the 18th-19th April.

Mr. MOLSON: Had the police information a long time before the raid had been arranged to be carried out?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot say whether they had information a long time before, but they certainly had information before the raid. They were in some difficulty owing to the lapsing of a part of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act. If that Act had not been lapsing, they would have had a much stronger force to deal with suspects.

SITUATION.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House the latest information he has as to the political situation in India?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement in regard to the political position in India?

Sir S. HOARE: I am circulating a statement covering the events of last week.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the number of persons apprehended since the last report be included in the statement?

Sir S. HOARE: I always circulate that information in another report.

Following is the statement:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S REPORT for week
ending 20th March.

The broad effect of this week's reports from the provinces is to indicate a marked improvement in several directions; in particular, the Muslim situation in Delhi, which was the cause of anxiety last week, has settled down better than was expected and there has been little trouble during the present week, and the number of convictions in some provinces appears now to be definitely on the downward grade. The tribal situation is clearing up better than was apprehended; the reactions of Transfrontier activities have been only local in the North-West Frontier Province, and have been set off by an improvement in other directions.

PREPARATORY MILITARY SCHOOL, POONA.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India the nature and work of the Shri Shivaji Preparatory Military School, Poona, in respect of which an advertisement is
appearing asking for a principal; and whether this is an institution in any way recognised or supported by the Government of India?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no official information regarding this institution, which, I understand, has not yet commenced to function. I am asking the Government of India for a report.

CIVIL SERVICE AND POLICE (BRITISH RECRUITS).

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the proportion of British recruitment for the Indian Civil Service and the Indian police is being retained as recommended by the Lee Commission; and what is the present percentage of Indians in the Indian Civil Service in the Bombay Presidency?

Sir S. HOARE: The recruitment proportions adopted as a result of the Lee Commission report have not been changed. The percentage of Indians holding Indian Civil Service posts in Bombay Presidency on 1st January last was 37, including for this purpose the 19 Indians who were holding listed posts reserved for members of the Provincial Civil Service.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the districts of the Bombay Presidency, 66 per cent. are under Indian district magistrates and collectors?

Sir S. HOARE: I will look into that question and give my hon. Friend an answer.

BURMA.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will inform the House as to the present situation in regard to the disturbances in Burma?

Sir S. HOARE: The situation in Burma during the past week has been devoid of disturbance.

UNITED PROVINCES (PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT).

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been arrived at regarding the proposal to abolish the post of Director of Public Health in the United
Provinces and to amalgamate the Public Health Department with the Medical Department under the Inspector-General of Civil Hospitals?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been made regarding the proposal to abolish the post of Director of Public Health in the United Provinces and to amalgamate the Public Health Department with the Medical Department under the Inspector-General of Civil Hospitals; whether he will state the reasons for and against the proposal; and in what way it is proposed to safeguard the health of the people not in hospital?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not heard of any such proposal as regards the United Provinces. Perhaps my hon. Friends are referring to the Central Provinces where a proposal to combine temporarily the posts of Director of Public Health and the Inspector-General of Civil Hospitals is under consideration as a measure of economy.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. BERNAYS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the number of cases of the administration of corporal punishment on boys for political offences in India, he will make representations to the Government of India that this punishment for such offences shall be discontinued?

Sir S. HOARE: The matter is one for the discretion of the courts. This form of punishment may be awarded for offences against the Penal Code under the ordinary law and not under any emergency ordinances. The political motive of the offence is not relevant. In these circumstances it is not for me to intervene in the ordinary course of justice.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether such punishment may be administered irrespective of the age of a child?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot give an answer without looking into the facts.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all those children come either under the ordinary law or the law relating to ordinances?

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the minimum age at which a child can be charged with an offence?

Sir S. HOARE: I have just said that those offences are not political offences. They are offences under the penal code.

PRISONERS (JUVENILES).

Mr. BERNAYS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of boys and girls under 17 years of age who have been sentenced in India to terms of imprisonment for political offences during the last three months?

Sir S. HOARE: I regret that the information desired is not available.

SHOOTING, ZALUM, BURMA.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India the particulars concerning the shooting of a young barrister, who was a, member of the Burma Round Table Conference, at Zalum, in Burma?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information other than that contained in Press messages from which it appears that the victim was not himself one of the members of the Burma Round Table Conference but was the junior partner of U Ni, who was a delegate.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are official inquiries being made in order to ascertain the facts of the situation?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir. I understand that magisterial inquiries are being made.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE (COUNCIL).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India, if he will inform the House of the number of seats in the new provincial council in the North-West Frontier province; how many of these are to be filled by nominations and how many by election; and how many persons in the province will have the right to exercise a vote in the forthcoming elections to the council and what proportion these bear to the total population of the province?

Sir S. HOARE: The council is to consist of 40 members of whom 28 will be elected and the remainder nominated. The number of persons with the right to
vote under the Electoral Rules is expected to be approximately 4 per cent. of the total population of the province.

BRITISH ARMY.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any progress has been made in settling the issue between the Government of India and His Majesty's Government on the question of the capitation payments made by the Government of India on account of the recruitment and training of British soldiers for service in the British Army in India?

Sir S. HOARE: The question is still under active consideration.

COTTON TRADE.

Mr. HANNON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India in view of the willingness of numerous Indian merchants to reestablish free trading in the bazaars in the cotton trade if they could be relieved of Congress interference, what special measures have been adopted recently to restrict Congrss activity in this respect?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of Bombay recently addressed cotton merchants and associations in regard to relief from the boycott measures and hartals to which the trade is subjected under Congress influence. Suggestions made in this connection are under discussion between the Government and the cotton trade interests.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman support in every way he can the tendency in Bombay to bring about a better understanding between the cotton merchants and the exporters of goods from this country?

Sir S. HOARE: As far as I understand my hon. Friend's question, my answer will be "Yes."

FRANCHISE COMMITTEE.

Mr. HANNON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make a statement on the attitude of the All-India Moslem Conference towards the work of the Franchise Committee; and if His Majesty's Government has yet given an indication of their attitude towards a communal settlement, following upon the reference made to the Prime Minister by the Viceroy, as announced on 22nd February?

Sir S. HOARE: The All-Parties Moslem Conference is being held to-day I am not aware what its attitude will be. As regards the second part of the question, I invite my hon. Friend's attention to the statement which has appeared in the Press.

WOMAN PRISONER, TELLICHERY, MADRAS.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the action of Mr. Dodwell, the sub-divisional magistrate of Tellichery, in Madras, in compelling the removal in court from the person of a woman prisoner, sentenced by him to fine and imprisonnient for engaging in the civil disobedience movement, not only of her ornaments in payment of the fine, but also of her Mangalsutra, an intimate possession of Hindu women of religious significance as a marriage token; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: The Madras Government have already inquired into this matter, and I will send the hon. Member the relevant extract from their communique, which mentions that the district magistrate ordered the return of the thali and the sub-divisional magistrate has expressed sincere regret for what was done under a misapprehension.

CONGRESS ACTIVITIES, ASSAM.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information regarding the resumption of Congress activities in Assam; and what the position is in this respect in that province?

Sir S. HOARE: My latest information, dated last Saturday, is that the situation in Assam continues to show general improvement. Youths convicted of picketing and other offences are tendering apologies in increasing numbers and being released; and there have been meetings in Sylhet to protest against the civil disobedience movement.

BAJAUR (AIR OPERATIONS).

Mr. McENTEE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many raids during the past month have been made by the Royal Air Force in the Bajaur valley; and whether any warning was given to the inhabitants of the mud-walled villages which were set on fire by incendiary bombs?

Sir S. HOARE: Air action was taken on the 8th March, after due warning, against certain villages in Bajaur from which a hostile lashkar had collected to threaten the British border.

ORDINANCES.

Mr. McENTEE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India intend to take advantage of the fact that the Indian Legislative Assembly and the Council of State are in session to bring before them in the form of legislation the detailed provisions contained in the recent Ordinances?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AMERICA (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that owing to the default of Chile a number of British investors have lost their savings; and will he inquire of the Chilean Government what proposals they can make to honour their obligation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies which were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on the 17th of February, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) on the 16th and 23rd of November last. I am fully aware of the hardship to British investors, but I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by addressing representations to the Chilean Government on this matter at the present time.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the Brazilian authorities the date upon which the State of Rio de Janeiro will honour its obligations to British subjects who lent it their savings; and, if any negotiations are proceeding, will he request the British commercial secretary in Brazil to represent the unorganised British holders of the securities of the State of Rio de Janeiro, irrespective of any scheme being negotiated on behalf of bondholders by those loan houses who sold the bonds to British investors, in order that British
investors may receive the protection of His Majesty's Government and that their interests may be separately represented and distinguished from the interests of those loan houses who also act for the Brazilian borrowing authority?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that negotiations on this matter are in progress. As regards the second part of the question, the Council of Foreign Bondholders represent bondholders generally, and it has never been the practice, and in my view it would be undesirable, for negotiations between foreign Governments and their creditors on the London market to be conducted by His Majesty's Government. As regards the position of individual investors, it is, of course, customary to obtain the assent of individual bondholders to any arrangements proposed.

Sir C. CAYZER: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the British small investors who have entrusted their savings to the Chilean Government not being represented in any negotiations with the Chilean Government except by those financial firms who were responsible for issuing the Chilean loans in Britain, he will arrange for His Majesty's commercial secretary in Chile to represent the small British investor and on his behalf watch any agreement, irrespective of the intervention of the issuing firms?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the second part of my answer to his immediately preceding question, which applies equally in this instance.

Lord SCONE: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will obtain from the Brazilian Government a declaration that its undertaking to deposit currency to cover its third default provides that the currency, pending distribution, shall not be used for any purpose other than that specified in the agreement of 14th March; or, failing such a declaration, will he, on behalf of British investors who do not accept the issuing houses as their representatives, nominate an official of the British Government to act as co-trustee, so that the currency deposited cannot be used without the co-trustee's sanction?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my
Noble Friend to the answer I have just given to my hon. Friend, the Member for the City of Chester (Sir C. Cayzer). I would also draw the attention of my Noble Friend to the express undertaking given by the Brazilian Government in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the General Bond implementing the agreement published on the 14th of March.

Lord SCONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there is a very real danger that these funds may be put to some purpose for which they were certainly not intended?

Sir J. SIMON: If my Noble Friend will examine paragraphs 15 and 16 of the General Band, as I did this morning, he will see that they contain a very substantial assurance on that point.

Mr. McEWEN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the municipality of Buenos Aires persist in their refusal to sanction the request of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company, Limited, for an increase of fares; and whether he will now consider the advisability of again addressing official representations to the Argentine Government on behalf of the large number of British investors in this company?

Sir J. SIMON: I regret to state that no progress appears to have been made in this matter since the answer given to my Noble Friend, the Member for Perth (Lord Scone), on the 8th February. It is understood that proposals for forming a traffic combine are under consideration, but His Majesty's Government, while sympathising with any desire on the part of the municipality of Buenos Aires to solve the traffic problem by the coordination of the interests concerned, would view with great concern any consequent postponement of the immediate relief which is indispensable if the company is to continue its present efficient service under the terms of its concession. These terms, as was stated in the previous reply to which I have referred, have become quite inapplicable to present-day conditions, as was admitted when, in April, 1920, the necessary increase in fares was actually granted and continued until April, 1923. The company had increased their wages bill by £350,000 in return for this concession, and have maintained this ever since despite the with-
drawal of the concession. His Majesty's Government will continue to take every opportunity of bringing the seriousness of the case to the notice of the Argentine Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House of the steps which the Government intend to take in order to secure payment for British nationals of the debts due to them from the Russian Soviet Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I have nothing to add to the replies given to my hon. Friend on the 8th of February. The matter is under constant review, and if my hon. Friend can suggest any practicable scheme for obtaining a settlement by unilateral action, I shall be happy to consider it.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that diplomatic relations were resumed on the distinct understanding that this question of debt should be dealt with and that no proposal whatever has been made; and does he not think that some strong representation should be made that diplomatic relations cannot be continued if the Soviet Government do not fulfil what they said they would do?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will see that the question is, what steps should be taken to secure payment of debts? I shall be very glad if he will give me any practical suggestions to obtain that settlement.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right bon. Gentleman think that if the trade agreement were withdrawn it would have a very material effect in securing payment of some of the debts at any rate?

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will invite the League of Nations to approach the Soviet Russian State and ask it to allow a commission to enter its territory and report upon conditions of labour?

Sir J. SIMON: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. I hardly think that the League of Nations could propose to institute a local inquiry in the territory of a non-member State, except at the request of that State.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman request that State to ask the League of Nations to make the inquiry?

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is the Secretary of State aware that American business men who have, been in Russia have signed a declaration that there is no forced labour in Russia?

Sir W. DAVISON: Do you believe it?

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: In that case, why should not Russia welcome such a commission?

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state the result of His Majesty's Ambassador's representations to the German Government regarding the detention in Germany of funds in transit to Britain from Budapest; and will he state what steps he has taken at Budapest to prevent British property being detained by another Government while in transit from Hungary to Britain?

Sir J. SIMON: Correspondence with the German Government is continuing on this subject, and for the present I should prefer not to make any public statement.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Do not His Majesty's Government desire that manufacturers should carry on trade in Central Europe, and, if His Majesty's Government do so desire, does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that we cannot export our goods if the German Government hold up payment for them?

Sir J.SIMON: I assure my hon. Friend that I am fully alive to the considerations which he mentioned, and I really have good grounds for saying that I prefer not to make any public statement.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend? Will he bring home to the German
Government that their action is an example of trying to exert might over right?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Captain NORTH: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any date has yet been announced for the withdrawal of the Japanese troops from Shanghai; and what are the reasons for their continued presence there after the withdrawal of the Chinese from the vicinity of the city?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that negotiations on the whole subject are now proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALVADOR (RISING).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement as to what action was taken by British marines in connection with the recent rising in Salvador; and what is the present position in that country?

Sir J. SIMON: A party of marines from H.M.C.S. "Skeena" was landed on the British railway pier at Acajutla on the 24th of January, but, in view of the improvement in the general and local situation, their services were not required, and they were re-embarked. Recent reports from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at San Salvador show that the rising, which was of an unusually serious nature and might have entailed grave consequences, has been effectually subdued by the Government of Salvador, who remain in effective control of the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the announcement by the new Manchurian Government that it intends to take over the Customs and Salt Administration; and whether the British Government are making any representations in view of the fact that various British loans are secured on the Chinese Customs and Salt Administration as a whole?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no official information of any such announcement, but the matter is being carefully watched and any representations that may appear desirable will be made in the appropriate quarter. According to my information, the Manchurian authorities, as well as the Chinese Government, are already fully alive to the importance attached by His Majesty's Government to the foreign loan obligations.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will it be competent for the new Manchurian Government to undertake any such action without first being recognised by the Powers?

Sir J. SIMON: I think my hon. Friend will see that this question refers to the suggested action that might be taken in fact, rather than to the legality of the action. I have no official information.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANUBIAN COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC RESTORATION).

Mr. HANNON: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a draft agreement has yet been reached at Geneva in relation to the proposed scheme of conomic co-operation between the Danubian States; if a conference between the representatives of the Governments concerned will he convened to consider the scheme; and if His Majesty's Government will withhold approval of any plans for preferential trading under the scheme until after the Ottawa Conference?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise. The subject of closer economic relations between Danubian, States, with a view to assisting their financial recovery is under the active consideration of the Powers principally interested, including ourselves. I can make no announcement at the moment, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the work of the Ottawa Conference will not be prejudiced.

Mr. HANNON: Will any conference be convened between the countries concerned before any decision is reached at Geneva?

Sir J. SIMON: The second part of my hon. Friend's question is
if a conference between the representatives of the Government's concerned will be convened to consider the scheme.
The first part of my answer was to the effect that no such scheme has been reached. It, is possible that there may be discussions thereafter, but at die moment I can make no further statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many of the beet-sugar factories now operating in Great Britain produce raw and white sugar, respectively; what was the total output of raw and white sugar from British beet during the last season; and how the proportion of raw to white output for that season compares with 1926–27?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): Of the 18 beet-sugar factories operating in Great Britain in the 1931–32 season, seven produced only raw sugar, nine produced only white sugar (exclusive of small quantities of after-product sugar of lower polarisations) and two produced both raw and white sugar. The total production of beet sugar in that season was 251,400 tons, including 139,300 tons of raw sugar and 112,100 tons of white sugar. The output of raw sugar in 1926–27 and 1931–32 represented 11.7 per cent. and 55.4 per cent. of the total quantities of sugar produced in those seasons respectively.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the value of sugar-beet seed imported from foreign sources during each year since the Beet Sugar Subsidy Act became law?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret I am unable to give my hon. Friend the information for which he asks.

Major CARVER: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the total amount, during the period in which the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act has been in operation, which has been received by the farmers in respect of their beet over and above their approximate expenses in producing these beets; and how this amount of profit to the farmers compares with the aggregate amounts allocated during the same period by the factories to profits, reserves, and depreciation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The aggregate amounts received by growers for their beet crops, without allowing for the value of residuals, during the subsidy period up to and including the 1930–31 season exceeded by about £4,500,000 the approximate total production casts, calculated on the basis of figures from representative farms compiled annually by the Institute for Research in Agricultural Economics at Oxford University. The balance sheets of the beet sugar companies show that, up to 31st March, 1931, the sums placed to reserve, applied to depreciation, distributed as dividends and retained as un-appropriated balances amounted to about £6,500,000.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion that sum bears to the total value of the sugar produced?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should prefer the hon. Member to put that question on the Order Paper.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that the question of evolving an Empire sugar policy will be on the agenda for the Ottawa Conference; and, if not, whether he will consider taking some other immediate action to evolve a more satisfactory sugar policy for Great Britain, in view of the experience which has now been gained from subsidising sugar-beet in this country and giving a limited measure of preference to sugar from Colonial sources?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): In reply to the first part of the question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Miss Cazalet), on the 25th February. In reply to the second part, the whole question of sugar is now under consideration by His Majesty's Government and I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When considering an Empire sugar policy will the right hon. and gallant Member also consider an Empire coal policy?

Commander MARSDEN: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount of white sugar produced last
year by the Cupar factory from British beet and from imported raw sugar, respectively; and what is the amount of loan money guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts outstanding in respect of this factory?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): The amount of white sugar produced from British beet during the last manufacturing season by the Cupar factory was 545 tons 6 cwts. I regret I cannot give the information desired with respect to the amount produced from imported raw sugar. As regards the last part of the question a guaranteed loan of £865,000, which is not allocated to particular factories, was advanced under the Trade Facilities Acts to the Second Anglo-Scottish Beet-Sugar Corporation Limited for the erection of three beet-sugar factories including Cupar, and of this amount £123,600 has been repaid by the Company.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

PIG, MILK AND POTATO INDUSTRIES (REORGANISATION).

Mr. McEWEN: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps, if any, have been taken by the pig, milk and potato industries towards reorganisation with a view to obtaining fulfilment of the Government's promise of quantitative regulation of imports affecting those industries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Resolutions for the appointment of Reorganisation Commissions for Milk and Bacon have been passed by representative bodies, and the next step will be the setting up of commissions to prepare schemes, on which subject I hope to be in a position to make an announcement at an early date. No request has been received so far for the appointment of a Reorganisation Commission for potatoes, although I have reason to believe that producers are exploring the position.

Mr. McEWEN: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to encourage reorganisation in these industries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I shall very shortly set up a commission under the Act to deal with these problems.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many separate bodies of farmers have passed such a resolution as the one referred to?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In one case I believe the Farmers' Union and in the other the Pig Council.

IMPORTED POTATOES.

Major CARVER: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the respective prices of potatoes imported from Germany, Belgium and Holland during the last month, and how these prices compare with the British-grown product?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The average prices of first quality German, Belgian and Dutch potatoes at wholesale markets in England and Wales in February last were £7 18s. 6d., £8 and £7 12s. per ton, respectively. The average prices of first quality English potatoes during the same period were as follow:



£
s.
d.


Great Scot
10
2
0


King Edward VII (Lincolnshire and Yorkshire)
12
2
0


King Edward VII (other districts)
10
13
0


Kerr's Pink
9
12
6


Majestic
1
14
0

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS BROADCASTING (INTERFERENCE).

Mr. HANLEY: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of cases of electrical interference with broadcast receivers by tramways and trolley-omnibuses, by oscillation, and by other electrical devices investigated by his Department during the last year, and the number of remedies effected in each case?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): As the reply includes a number of statistics I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Statistics in regard to cases of interference with broadcast reception are not readily available for last year, but the
following analysis of the complaints received during the six months ended the 29th February, 1932, may be taken as fairly representative:


Cause of interference.
Total number of complaints received.
Number of cases in which remedies were effected.


Tramways and Trolley Omnibuses.
150
90


Oscillation
1,930
1,540


Other electrical devices
4,150
3,110


Totals for 6 months
6,230
4,740

The majority of the remaining 1,490 complaints are still under investigation. In a few cases remedial measures could not be effected because the owners of the interfering apparatus refused either to permit investigation or to adopt the remedies suggested by the Post Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CHRISTMAS STAFF (REFRESHMENTS).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that serious physical exhaustion was suffered by a number of the temporary staff employed by the Post Office during the last Christmas season due to the discontinuance of the issue of light refreshments; and whether he will revise his instructions for the winter of 1932?

Sir K. WOOD: The practice of supplying light refreshments to the Post Office staff during the period of Christmas pressure was discontinued some 10 years ago. I have received no information to the effect suggested by the hon. Member, but if he will supply me with particulars I will have inquiry made.

OVERSEAS MAILS (BRITISH SHIPS).

Mr. DAVID MASON: 43.
(for Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS) asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice of his Department to despatch mails by the fastest ships leaving the port irrespective of nationality?

Sir K. WOOD: It is the practice generally to accord preference to ships of British nationality; but correspondence specially superscribed by the sender for transmission by a foreign ship is forwarded by that ship.

Sir CHARLES BARRIE: How much is paid to foreign vessels for carrying out this work? Would it not be much better to encourage the building of the new Cunarder to take the place of these vessels, rather than to subsidise the foreigner?

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COURT JUDGES (RETIREMENT).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of fixing a retiring age for Judges of the High Court and courts of summary jurisdiction?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): This question has often been considered. I think that the better course is to continue to rely on Judges of the High Court retiring before infirmity affects the efficient discharge of their duties. I also think it undesirable to fix a retiring age for justices of the peace, many of whom can usefully perform part of their duties after they have voluntarily ceased to sit in courts of summary jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if it is proposed that selected business men should accompany Ministers to Ottawa to facilitate the consideration of what will be mainly commercial and economic issues needing expert guidance?

The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is at present under consideration.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the question of an Empire monetary policy will be one of the subjects to be discussed at Ottawa?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Islington East (Miss Cazalet) on the 25th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — STOCK EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS.

Mr. POTTER: 49.
asked the Attorney-General whether, as a result of the disclosures in a recent case in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, he will, in order to prevent fraud upon the
public, take steps to make all persons proved to be party to the publication of fictitious markings of Stock Exchange transactions liable for a criminal offence within the scope of the Larceny Acts?

Tht SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 16th March to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), in reply to a similar question, to which there is nothing I can add.

Oral Answers to Questions — LITIGATION COSTS.

Captain WATT: 50.
asked the Attorney-General if he is prepared to initiate some State-aided scheme whereby litigation could be made cheaper for those people with incomes of less than £500 per annum?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not consider that the scheme suggested by the hon. and gallant Member is desirable or practicable.

Captain WATT: Is the Solicitor-General aware that the high costs of litigation, particularly in regard to divorce proceedings, are making it almost impossible for poor people with incomes under £500 to seek their rights in the courts of the country?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is already in existence a procedure for dealing with the professional costs of poor persons. The question of the hon. Member seeks to extend that procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Captain WATT: 51.
asked the Attorney-General if he is prepared to take steps to abolish all voluntary benches of magistrates and substitute stipendiary magistrates, similar to those in the Metropolitan area?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, Sir, I am not prepared to advise the Government to take the steps proposed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MEDICAL OFFICERS)

Sir C. CAYZER: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether any of the whole-time members of his medical staff perform
duties or hold appointments other than such as are connected officially with his Department for which they receive emoluments not provided by the State?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The answer is in the affirmative. I should however make it clear that the performance of any such duties or the holding of any such appointments (which consist of the delivery of occasional lectures or acting temporarily as examiners) are only allowable where they do not interfere with the regular duties and the position of an officer as a public servant, or with the public interest.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Mr. BRIANT: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport whether inquiries have been made into the complaints received of the office conditions in which certain women civil servants are employed in his Department?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): If my hon. Friend will communicate to me the case he has in mind I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES, LIVERPOOL.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 53
asked the Minister of Health (1) why the Liverpool (Burlington Street Areas) Improvement Scheme, approved by him in 1924, is not yet completed; and whether it is with his approval that the Liverpool Corporation have been in receipt of rents from the houses, which were at that time declared unfit for human habitation, from 1924 to the present time;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that under Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, no compensation is paid for condemned houses, he will instruct public authorities to make arrangements in cases where demolition will extend over a period of years to allow the owners to retain the ownership of their premises up to the time that their houses are actually required for demolition;
(3) whether he is aware that it is the intention of the Liverpool Corporation to execute the Queen Anne Street area improvement scheme by stages extend-
ing over a period of several years, and that the corporation are requiring the immediate conveyance of the whole of the properties in this area; and if it is with his approval that the Liverpool Corporation propose to take the rents from the tenants of the condemned houses pending demolition?

Sir H. YOUNG: The carrying out of all improvement scheme by a local authority is a matter within their discretion, and I have no power to express approval or disapproval of the action taken. As my hon. Friend will realise it may often not be practicable to undertake the demolition of all the properties in an area at one time, and it may well be that the unsatisfactory conditions present can only be mitigated pending demolition if the local authority are in possession of the houses.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will not the right hon. Gentleman under the powers he possesses under the 1925 Act supervise the actions of the local authority in Liverpool, as great hardship is being done to many of the working-classes, and particularly to ex-Service men, who have gone to the extent in some cases of commuting their pensions in order to obtain houses, and in return have been given a mere pittance for the land upon which the houses are built?

Mr. LOGAN: Is it not the fact that since the local authority have taken this work in hand working-class families have received better conditions than under the old system?

Sir W. SUGDEN: In regard to that question—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 50.
(for Mr. HUTCHISON) asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider suggesting to the local authorities concerned that where they carry out housing schemes in the area of other local authorities, thus throwing on the latter the expenses of local charges, they should afford to residents in the other districts the opportunity of applying for some percentage of the houses thus constructed?

Sir H. YOUNG: While I am prepared to consider any proposal made by local
authorities concerned to enter into an agreement on the lines suggested in the question, I could not suggest to local authorities the undertaking of expenditure which is not required by the circumstances of the area actively under their administration.

Oral Answers to Questions — THAMES FLOODS (PREVENTION).

Mr. MOREING: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether a decision has been arrived at with regard to the resumption of the work of the Departmental Committee on Thames Floods Prevention; whether it is expected that the committee will resume its sitting and whether he will urge the committee to expedite its deliberations and issue a report at any early date?

Sir H. YOUNG: The question of the resumption of the sittings of this Departmental Committee is under consideration and I cannot at the moment add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 3rd March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (CAPITAL).

Mr. PARKINSON: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what will be the cost of building the new capital of Northern Rhodesia; and bow the money required is to be provided?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): It is proposed to spend on a reduced programme, providing for the removal of certain departments only, approximately £100,000 in addition to £8,000 already spent. Against this has to be set the cost of new quarters and offices which would otherwise have to be built in Livingstone. The money will be provided from surplus balances or loan funds of Northern Rhodesia.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "SHEAF LANCE" (CHINESE CREW).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Chinese crew of the "Sheaf Lance," which was recently signed on at Cardiff, were asked to submit to a language test; and whether he will state how many of
them were unable to speak or to understand the English language?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): The Chinese crew engaged in January for the "Sheaf Lance" were subjected to a language test, and each man was found to have a sufficient knowledge of the English language to understand the necessary orders which might be given to him in the course of his duties.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say where the language test was applied? These men were picked up at Rotterdam and brought to Barry. Was the language test applied at Barry?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In, the English port.

Mr. GRENFELL: Would the hon. Member be surprised to hear that there is no record of it?

Mr. LOGAN: Can the hon. Member say whether it was the language of the second officer which was known by the men? When is the Board of Trade going to take a, stand for British seamen on board British ships instead of Chinese?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can give the hon. Member no information on the first part of his question. As regards the second part, he must be aware of the reactions on British seamen of taking that step?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT.

Mr. PARKINSON: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many registrations under the Registration of Business Names Act were made in the past 12 months to the most convenient date; and how many cases of evasion of the provisions of the Act were brought to his notice?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: During the 12 months ended 29th February, 1932, the number of registrations under the Act was 20,134, and rather less than 300 cases of alleged evasion were brought to the notice of the Department.

PETROL-FILLING STATIONS (INSPECTION).

Mr. LOGAN: 62.
(for Mr. THORNE) asked the President of the Board of
Trade at what intervals his Department inspectors inspect the pumps at petrol-filling stations to correct the amounts of automatic supplies?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Under the Board of Trade Regulations, it is the duty of local authorities to arrange that petrol pumps shall be inspected and tested at least once a year and also to arrange for special surprise visits to be made from time to time.

GERMAN BARLEY AND OAT PRODUCTS.

Lord SCONE: 63.
(for Duchess of ATHOLL) asked the President of the Board of Trade to what German barley and oat products a duty-free import certificate system is operative?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Such a system as the Noble Lady has in mind applies at present to pearled barley, barley grits, groats, meal and flakes and to milling products of oats other than oats merely crushed or rolled, and bruised or otherwise crudely pulverised oats.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (SUBMARINE M2).

Mr. TINKER: 65.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is in a position to make a further statement in respect of the submarine M2?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): His Majesty's Ship "Tedworth" resumed operations on the wreck on 5th March. The services of Mr. E. F. Cox have been accepted in an advisory capacity until the salvage is successfully completed. Since my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton on the 10th February, diving operations have brought to light the: following additional facts: The hatch leading from inside the hangar into the submarine is wide open and one body was jambed inside the hangar. This body has been landed at Portland, where an inquest is being held to-day (Monday). It must be appreciated that the strong tides and the depth of water render diving operations extremely difficult, and only possible during the periods of slack water. In addition, owing to the exposed position, it is only possible to moor His Majesty's Ship "Tedworth" over the wreck in calm weather. As a result, it has only been possible to carry out
approximately 33 hours of actual diving between the 5th and the 20th of March inclusive. Work will proceed on every possible occasion, but progress will of necessity be slow due to the reasons already stated. Sufficient evidence as to the exact cause of the loss of the vessel has not yet been obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (TECHNICAL TRAINING).

Major CARVER: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether in view of recent developments in providing children with facilities for obtaining the necessary technical knowledge for entering certain industrial trades, he will consider taking the necessary steps to give more children a knowledge of agriculture in order to provide the encouragement necessary to persuade them to adopt agricultural careers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The provision of technical agricultural education, analogous to technical education for industry of the type to which the hon. Member presumably refers, is within the purview of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. But the Board of Education are fully alive to the importance of securing that courses of instruction in elementary and secondary schools in rural districts are specially suited to agricultural conditions, and they have for some time been encouraging the efforts made by county education authorities and governing bodies in this direction.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Is not the best means of keeping boys on the land for the Government to continue their efforts to make agriculture more prosperous, and so enable the farmer to pay the agricultural worker a better wage?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: That is just what the Government are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMARY JURISDICTION COURTS (APPEALS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider drawing the attention of the magistrates concerned to the practice of other courts in dispensing
with recognisances in appeal cases, and recommending that they should adopt a similar policy in respect of police court charges, especially in view of the fact that the funishing of such recognisances is beyond the power of the poorer defendants?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): I am not quite sure what other courts the question refers to, but as regards appeals in criminal cases from Courts of Summary Jurisdiction to Courts of Quarter Sessions, I am advised that the recognisance should be fixed in such a stun as will cover the reasonable costs of the respondent in supporting the decision appealed against and will ensure the appeal being duly proceeded with.

Captain ERSKI NE-BOLST: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very serious hardship that this imposes on poor people? I understand that in other courts appeals are permitted without recognisances, whereas in these police courts very big sums are required.

Sir H. SAMUEL: It is statutory under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. I have no other power.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter, when he will see that the sum of £50 is absolutely prohibitive before there is an appeal against a decision?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, I have looked into the matter, and I may have occasion to ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to go into it. I realise that there is a real grievance.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. DE MONTALK (MAGISTRATES' SENTENCE).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 72.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will now review the sentence of six months' imprisonment passed upon Mr. de Montalk?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I understand that an application has been made on the prisoner's behalf for the Attorney-General's certificate under Section 1 (6) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, with a view to an appeal to the House of Lords; and I cannot consider the case while this application is pending.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether consideration has been given to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales) that the law should be amended so as to permit the sale by off-licence holders of spirits in quantities of one reputed pint; and whether it is the intention to give effect to this recommendation?

Major ELLIOT: The recommendations of the Royal Commission will require to be considered as a whole, and there has not yet been time for the Government to give their report adequate consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD SCHEMES, PENISTONE.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport when it is intended to terminate the road schemes at Thurgoland and Cawthorne, in the urban district of Penistone; and whether, in view of the circumstances prevailing at Penistone in consequence of the closing of the local steel works, he will sanction the continuation of these road schemes for a further period?

Mr. PYBUS: I have arranged with the West Riding County Council for work on the Penistone and Cawthorne by-passes to be carried out to the extent of rather more than one-half of the total estimated expenditure of £182,000. Having regard to the necessity for limiting Road Fund expenditure, I regret that I am unable at present to make a grant to a further extension of the works.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Will the hon. Gentleman, when reviewing these cases, pay regard to the areas that are particularly necessitous?

Mr. PYBUS: Yes, I invariably do.

ROAD GRANTS.

Mr. PEAT: 76.
(for Sir COOPER RAWSON) asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increased unemployment in the roadstone quarrying industry due to the economy proposals being carried out by many public authorities and the closing down or short-
time working of quarries in different parts of the country, the Ministry contemplate making increased grants to local authorities during the next 12 months to enable more work to be put in hand?

Mr. PYBUS: Owing to the need for limiting expenditure out of the Road Fund at the present time, grants to works of improvement and reconstruction must necessarily be restricted, but I have recently informed the highway authorities that the percentage of grant given towards the maintenance of classified roads will continue to be made during the coming financial year.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (RUSSIAN TIMBER).

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: 44.
(for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE) asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will issue instructions that no Russian timber is to be used in any contracts governed by his Department?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am at present considering the extent to which Russian and other foreign timber is used in Office of Works contracts, in connection with proposals which would have the effect of limiting as far as possible the soft wood used, to Empire products.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 69.
(for Mr. NEIL MACLEAN) asked the Home Secretary what was the total sum paid out under the Various Industries (Silicosis) Scheme since the inception of the scheme for England and Wales and for Scotland, respectively?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I regret that separate figures as to the compensation paid under the Various Industries and Metal Grinding Industries Schemes, which are identical except as regards the processes to which they apply, are not available, but the total compensation paid under these two schemes during 1929 and 1930 was £46,783. I have no information as to the proportion paid in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively. The figures for 1931 are not yet available.

Mr. GRENFELL: 70.
(for Mr. MACLEAN) asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the total amounts collected in levies in connection with the Sandstone Industry (Silicosis) Scheme, 1929, since the commencement of the scheme; the total amount paid out in compensation since the commencement of the scheme; the total cost of administration, including the expenses incurred in collecting the levies and paying out compensation, the sums paid to the medical board, and the sums paid in connection with the local joint committees set up to determine claims; and what balance, if any, is at present in the fund?

Sir H. SAMUEL: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total amount collected up to the 31st December last was £124,721. The compensation payments amounted to £17,095; administrative expenses in connection with the collection of levies and payment of compensation claims, £7,498; sums paid towards cost of medical board, £14,161, and expenses of joint committees, £1,023. The balance at 31st December, 1931, which is the amount available to meet the outstanding liabilities in respect of cases which have already arisen and are still current, 128 in all, was £85,182. I may add that I have recently approved a substantial reduction in the rates of levy payable to the fund.

Mr. GRENFELL: 71.
(for Mr. MACLEAN) asked the Home Secretary what steps, if any, are being taken by the Home Office to have plant installed by the employers to prevent silicosis?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Much has been and is being done in this direction. Regulations to prevent silicosis have been made under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, for a number of industries, including the manufacture of silica bricks, the manufacture of cutlery and edge tools, and the grinding of metals and cleaning of castings, and a supplementary Code of Regulations for the pottery industry has recently been agreed with the industry, and will be brought into force very shortly. All these regulations include requirements involving the installation of plant to prevent inhalation of dust. Further, it is the general practice
of the inspectors under section 74 of the Act to require the provision of exhaust ventilation in any case where the workers are exposed to this risk. The prevention of silicosis in mines and quarries is a matter for the Mines Department?

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Mines Department to see that precautionary measures similar to those which have been applied in South Africa are applied in connection with the very large number of people affected by this disease in this country?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That question ought to be addressed to the Mines Department. I am sure that no influence is needed.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in South Africa they have gone very much further in investigating and dealing with this disease that we have gone here; and that it is desirable therefore to urge upon the Mines Department the importance of this matter?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That also is a question which ought to be addressed to the Mines Department.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in South Africa they have practically eliminated this disease from the mines?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am not responsible for the mines. This is a matter for the Mines Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER (PRODUCTION AND EXPORT).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding recent discussions on rubber restrictions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The following official communiqué was issued on Saturday night:
The British and Netherlands Governments in association with representatives of rubber growers in British and Dutch overseas territories have been engaged in negotiations, in order to see whether a practicable scheme for the improvement of the rubber situation could be devised. In the course of these negotiations the British and Netherlands Governments have consulted the Governments of Ceylon, Malaya and
the Netherlands Indies. After a careful review of the situation, the two Governments have been forced to the conclusion that under present conditions it is impossible to frame and operate an international scheme which would guarantee the effective regulation of the production or export of rubber.
This communiqué was issued at a time carefully chosen as being in the best interest of the industry and most convenient to market conditions. I do not think that within the limits of a Parliamentary answer I can add materially to the above statement. During the discussions the whole position was most carefully reviewed, in order to test the practicability of any scheme of restriction. The conclusion was reached that the practical difficulties were such as to preclude the adoption, with any reasonable prospect of success, of any comprehensive and effective scheme. This conclusion, which I am satisfied was inevitable in all the circumstances, has been reluctantly accepted by both the Governments concerned. I should like to add that I feel deeply indebted to the very experienced representatives of the rubber growing industry, who have been associated with the Government throughout the negotiations. Without their knowledge, experience and continuous work, it would have been impossible to undertake the comprehensive review of the industry and its circumstances which was necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Commander Archibald Douglas Cochrane, commonly called Commander the honourable Archibald Douglas Cochrane, D.S.O., R.N. (retired), for County of Dumbarton.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go with the business to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Motion for suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is primarily in order to finish the Committee stage of the Wheat Bill; but in addition, to enable us to get the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill and the Committee stage of the Tanganyika and British Honduras Loans Bill. The Government would like to obtain also the remaining stages of the Dangerous Drugs Bill which has come from another place, but it is not intended to keep the House sitting late in order to pass that Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 27.

Orders of the Day — WHEAT BILL.

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 18th March].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 25, to leave out lines 11 to 15.
I do not quite understand what is the reason for putting in this proviso, which runs as follows:
Provided that if in any parcel containing flour mixed with substances not produced by the milling of wheat the weight of those substances is fifty per cent. or more of the weight of the parcel, the parcel shall be deemed not to contain flour.
It looks to me as if it will mean that parcels containing flour mixed with barley, oatmeal, and so forth, in fact, parcels put up for feeding of stock, will be exempt from payment. I gather that flour, for instance, that is imported mixed with other products will come in free, and I do not see any reason why we should give it that advantage. I notice that the Minister has an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the 50 per cent. and to insert instead 60 per cent., but I think it would be much better if he adopted our Amendment. I see no reason why these particular parcels of mixed flour should be exempt. Is it not going to give a distinct advantage to feeding stuffs that are made up with a minimum of flour, and will they not, therefore, compete with our home production of feeding stuffs? It would be much sounder to delete the proviso so that any kind of flour in a mixture should be chargeable with the quota.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): As the hon. Gentleman has said, this proviso exempts from quota payments any mixture except where the substances other than wheat make 50 per cent. or more of the total weight. I propose to move at a later stage that the percentage be 60. These mixtures are in fact no longer wheat flour. They are mixtures of wheat flour meal with barley flour meal, maize flour and so on. This is of course a technical problem, but I have investigated it very carefully with the whole milling industry. One does not wish to put any burden upon that class
of these products which is used for poultry or other feeding. Flour forms a comparatively small proportion of these mixtures, and the only effect, in practice, if we made this burden apply to this kind of mixture would be to deter the use of home-grown wheat. Millers in the country areas would be at a disadvantage, and if they were penalised they would in fact use less British wheat. It is for that reason that we wish to leave these mixtures free. The milling industry as a whole have accepted the Amendment, which I shall subsequently propose, to alter the figure from 50 to 60. In these circumstances I advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We are anxious to safeguard the consumer, and we see the possibility under this proviso of millers, unless carefully watched, diverting from the present methods of production of commodities used for poultry feeding and such purposes on the farm. They might reduce the quality or increase the number of substances other than flour by dubious means, and thus cheat the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and to some extent the intention of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to agree to the deletion of this proviso, he might between now and the Report stage see whether suitable words could be found so that at least a minimum proportion of what would be flour would be exempt, and there should be such safeguards that, if the millers attempted to tamper with the normal practice, the Minister would have power to see to it that consumers of bread were not imposed upon, because the right hon. Gentleman has no desire to impose upon the millers. If the right hon. Gentleman will consider that possibility, we may perhaps change our minds.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to my hon. Friend. I am astonished that he should desire to extend the scope of this Bill by making flour products mixed with other commodities liable to the tax. On the contrary, we must be thankful for small mercies—

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting what I suggested. We are suggesting that the percentage of flour in the mixture ought to be subjected to the quota payment. Instead of, as the
hon. Gentleman suggests we are doing, extending the scope of the Bill, we are asking, it to be limited.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I understand that this proviso was originally put into the Bill at the time when only wheat meal that was milled by the 100 per cent. provender miller was left out of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has now, I understand, accepted an Amendment which will exclude all wheat meal whether milled by a provender miller or not. Is not the result now that this is quite inapplicable in the Bill as it stands, because the right hon. Gentleman is limiting the meaning of flour to flour for human consumption, not including wheat meal, for he is going to eliminate all wheat meal whether milled by a provender miller or not. This Clause was put in when the Bill applied to wheat meal as well as flour, and was, I understand, designed to cover cases where the wheat meal was mixed with other substances for purposes not of human consumption, but of consumption by animal stock.
We suggest leaving out the proviso, because if any wheat meal is going to bear the subsidy through the quota, it does not seem to be reasonable that you should leave out wheat meal which is mixed with other substances, for you will in fact force specialised mixtures upon the farmer. It will be cheaper for him, though perhaps not better for his stock, to buy mixtures which contain only 40 per cent. of wheat meal. It is a very dangerous line to take to try and force a particular mixture upon chicken farmers and the like, because, if you say that in that case the wheat meal carries no quota payment, it will be a big inducement for people to use those mixtures, and not to use a pure 100 per cent. wheat meal which may be a more useful feeding stuff to use. This cutting out of those mixtures with less than 40 per cent. flour will do no good in the end. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he is not going to charge the quota payment on wheat meal, that is, on milled wheat not for human consumption. This Sub-section ought to be limited to flour for human consumption or, if it is not
going to be so limited, it is unwise to have a proviso which will tend to stabilise a particular type of mixture, that is, a mixture with not more than 40 per cent. of wheat meal.

4.0 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: A great deal of this problem is very technical. I do not think the apprehension of the hon. and learned Gentleman will arise. This decision has been arrived at after very careful consultation with the various interests concerned. Wheatmeal, of course, is exempt as long as it is not used for human consumption. That, I think, is clear. In this case there may be mixing from time to time of a certain amount of flour. Our view is that it would be unreasonable if more than a certain proportion of flour were so mixed without paying the duty, but that, in fact, it is reasonable to give exemption for a certain amount. That is why we have put in this further provision.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that under this Subsection wheatmeal is not included, and that this only means flour for human consumption, because, as I read it, this Clause specifically includes wheat meal.

Sir J. GILMOUR: What, in fact, is going to happen is that pure wheat meal, as far as it is used for animal consumption, will be exempt. We are now dealing with mixtures in which there is a proportion of wheat. I think it is not unreasonable, as between the importer and the home producer, that they should be put more or less on a level basis, and we suggest that this is the best way of doing it. The question as to whether the industry departs from habits and practice must be a matter for careful supervision, and under the inspection and regulations which the Wheat Commission make, there will be ample opportunity, I understand, to test this and to see from time to time whether this is being abused or not. Obviously, the opportunity will arise for dealing with this matter.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'fifty,' in line 13, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 31.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[3.37 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cook, Thomas A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooke, Douglas


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cooper, A. Duff


Albery, Irving James
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Copeland, Ida


Allen, Lt.-Col J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Burghley, Lord
Cowan, D. M.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Burnett, John George
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Crooke, J. Smedley


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cambpell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Cross, R. H.


Bailey, Eric Altred George
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Crossley, A. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Carver, Major William H.
Davison, Sir William Henry


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Penman, Hon. R D.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dickie, John P.


Bernays, Robert
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Donner, p. W.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Dower, Captain A, V. G.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Bossom, A. C.
Chotzner, Alfred James
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Boulton, W. W.
Clarke, Frank
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Clarry, Reginald George
Elmley, Viscount


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cochrane, Commander A. D.
Entwistie, Cyril Fullard


Boyce, H. Leslie
Colman, N. C. D.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Colville, John
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Briant, Frank
Conant, R. J. E.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Remer, John R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Robinson, John Roland


Fleming. Edward Lascelles
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Flint, Abraham John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rosbotham, S. T.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mabane, William
Runge, Norah Cecil


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Savory, Samuel Servington


Goff, Sir Park
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Scone, Lord


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Granville, Edgar
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Martin, Thomas B.
Smithers, Waldron


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hales, Harold K.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meller, Richard James
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stewart, William J.


Harris, Sir Percy
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hartland, George A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Summersby, Charles H.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Tate, Mavis Constance


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A (P'dd'gtn, S.)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Templeton, William P.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Moss, Captain H. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Horobin, Ian M.
Muirhead, Major A. J,
Turton, Robert Hugh


Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
North, Captain Edward T.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nunn, William
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Peaks, Captain Osbert
Weymouth, Viscount


Janner, Barnett
Peat, Charles U.
White, Henry Graham


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)




Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ker, J. Campbell
Pike, Cecil F.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Potter, John
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Womersley, Walter James


Knebworth, Viscount
Pybus, Percy John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Knight, Hollord
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Leckie, J. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald



Lees-Jones, John
Rea, Waiter Russell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Levy, Thomas
Reid, David D. (County Down)
George Penny.


Liddall, Walter S.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[4.4 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Albery, Irving James
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Flint, Abraham John
Martin, Thomas B.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Atholl, Duchess of
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Meller, Richard James


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Fox, Sir Gilford
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Milts, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mille, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitcheson, G. G.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Golf, Sir Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Boulton, W. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddiesbro', W.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Munro, Patrick


Briant, Frank
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hates, Harold K.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
North, Captain Edward T.


Burghley, Lord
Harris, Sir Percy
Nunn, William


Burnett, John George
Harrington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hartland, George A.
Patrick, Colin M.


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Peat, Charles U.


Cambpell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M


Carver, Major William H.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pike, Cecil F.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Holdsworth, Herbert
potter, John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Horobin, Ian M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hume, sir George Hopwood
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Remer, John R.


Clarke, Frank
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cochrane, Commander A. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Robinson, John Roland


Colman, N. C. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cook, Thomas A.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooke, Douglas
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Knebworth, Viscount
Runge, Norah Cecil


Copeland, Ida
Knight, Holford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cowan, D. M.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Salmon, Major Isidore


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Leckie, J. A.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lees-Jones, John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cross, R. H.
Levy, Thomas
Scone, Lord


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Denman, Hon. R D.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G, (Wd. Gr'n)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Dickie, John P.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Donner, P. W.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Mabane, William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Duckworth, George A. V.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Smithere, Waldron


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Duggan, Hubert John
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Eastwood, John Francis
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sauthby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Major Alan
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macphereon, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart




Summersby, Charles H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Sutcliffe, Harold
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Womersley, Walter James


Templeton, William P.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKezie (Banff)


Thomas, James P L. (Hereford)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wells, Sydney Richard
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Weymouth, Viscount



Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Captain Austin Hudson and Lieut.-


Turton, Robert Hugh
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
price, Gabriel


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James



Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 25, line 13, to leave out the word "fifty," and to insert instead thereof the word "sixty."
As I explained on the last Amendment, this is an Amendment which raises the percentage of non-flour substances from 50 to 60 per cent.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 25, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
and if in any parcel containing wheat offals mixed with flour the weight of the flour is five per cent. or less of the weight of the parcel, the parcel shall be deemed not to contain flour.
This Amendment is to deal with a simple process of milling technique. There is a certain amount of flour which is brushed up from the floor, shaken out of the sacks or cleaned out from the machinery from time to time, and which it is the practice of the industry to put into the offal. Plainly, it is not of the character that ought to go into bread and food, and we think that this provision should be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir S. CRIPPS: I want to make one last despairing effort to try to get the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what he means by millable wheat, because it is, after all, the foundation of this Bill. My right hon. Friend, with that extreme in-
genuity which he is always able to show, managed to speak three or four times on Friday last on the subject of what is mill-able wheat without anybody obtaining any further enlightenment as to what intention he has in his mind. It really is a matter of the very greatest importance, and we have not yet been able to appreciate why the right hon. Gentleman should want to use the term "millable wheat" at all—unless he has got in his mind some idea of what he means by millable wheat, and how he is going to define it when the duty of definition falls upon him. There are two possible meanings for millable wheat; one, wheat which is fit to be milled, and the other wheat which it is possible to mill. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us with which of those two this Bill really deals? Is it wheat which is fit to be milled, or wheat which would ordinarily be milled, or wheat which can be milled?
Secondly, we want the right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication of the criteria by which this wheat is to be judged. I presume he is not going to set himself up as the universal arbitrator, to decide on every sample sold in the market whether it is or is not a sample which he thinks should get the subsidy. We are very much concerned to know the basis upon which the whole of this subsidy rests. We discussed on Friday the various matters which were considered of importance as regards the quality of wheat, but the right hon. Gentleman did not give us any indication of whether they are to be laid down as the proper criteria for judging whether wheat should get the
subsidy or not. Will he tell us what is in his mind? Why is this phrase "millable wheat" in the Bill rather than simply "wheat"?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: After so fervent an appeal from my hon. and learned Friend surely the right hon. Gentleman will say something on the subject of mill-able wheat. I do not know whether he has observed how great a part those two words play in this Bill? Up to Clause 18 the words "millable wheat" occur no fewer than 22 times, but in spite of that we have had no definition of what will be regarded as millable wheat. We had a useful discussion on Clause 11, which deals with the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be deemed "millable wheat" for the purpose of this Bill, but we have not yet been informed what standard will be prescribed. Surely the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is so great an expert on agrarian subjects, will step in where his right hon. Friend has failed and give us some idea of what "millable wheat" is to mean under any regulations that are made. I know the right hon. Gentleman's capacity for negotiating difficult political corners. We have seen his acrobatics on two or three occasions, and I admire his agility in negotiating difficult problems. At least we are entitled to know something about the definition which will bring in the 85 per cent. of wheat upon which deficiency payments will be made. As the consumer is called upon to pay, he ought to know in advance what "millable wheat" will be, and surely one or other of the right hon. Gentlemen, both of whom are well known experts in this particular field, can tell us the standard for millable wheat and how those two curious words will be defined.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I would like the Minister of Agriculture to give me his attention while I submit one or two conundrums in connection with the Bill. I should like a further explanation of what is meant by the word "price." We have a definition in this Clause, where it states that "price" means, in relation to any wheat,
the price obtainable or obtained therefor exclusive of any charge for transportation.
A farmer may sell his wheat on the farm, or in the market place, some 20, 30 or 50 miles away. The price at the farm
may be 25s. or 26s. per quarter, and if he goes to market he may get a similar price. Is it intended that the farmer shall be given something for transporting that wheat? Will the Minister look at me, please? Will he state whether the price does include an allowance to the farmer for taking his wheat off the land to a market place that may be 20, 30 or 50 miles away? It costs a good deal to transport a load of wheat. If the roads are bad a farmer may have to spend the best part of the day with a team of horses taking a load of four or five quarters of wheat a distance of five or 10 miles. Is some allowance to be made to him for the cost of transportation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): In replying to the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) I feel almost as though I were returning thanks for the toast of my health. I hardly recognise myself either as the great agricultural expert which he described me in one part of his speech or as the expert in acrobatics which he described me in another part. At any rate, this is not an occasion for a display of acrobatic expertise.

Mr. COVE: Do you recognise yourself as a, Free Trader?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), the price would certainly be the price on the farm, and, if necessary, the transport charges-would be deducted. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it would be quite impossible and unfair as between farmer and farmer to give any other standard. The main discussion on this Clause has centred round the question, What is millable wheat? I have not the slightest hesitation in adopting one of the three alternatives which the right hon. and learned Member put to me. I forget all the alternatives, but be mentioned one which provides a simple, clear and broad definition, and that is "wheat which would ordinarily be milled." That would rule out wheat which it is not possible to mill—wheat which is dirty, or infected with disease, or contains injurious impurities. All that kind of wheat would be ruled out. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend to give a precise definition of what millable wheat will be, but to do so would be con-
trary to the provisions of Clause 11, which has already been passed by the Committee, and which prescribes that the Minister, when making regulations prescribing the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be deemed "minable wheat" must only do so after consultation with the Wheat Commission. Until that consultation takes place I am afraid we cannot go further than the broad terms which I have given.

Sir P. HARRIS: I am afraid the contribution made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland serves only to make the definition of "millable wheat" even more confused, more "up in the clouds," than before. Of the alternatives which were suggested to him he selected the definition "wheat which ordinarily would be milled." If that is to be the definition, I suggest, with great respect, that it alters the Bill, because I understand that 90 per cent. of the wheat which will get the subsidy is not ordinarily milled, the greater part of it being used for poultry food. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman, because he is trying to succeed where the Minister of Agriculture has failed. Even two Scotsmen cannot clear up the meaning of "minable wheat." I have made careful inquiries from practical millers and I am assured that all wheat is mill-able, but that does not mean that all wheat will make good flour. A lot of the wheat produces flour not suitable to make the bread which we are accustomed to eat. It will make bread, but bread of an unattractive character; bread which may taste all right, but looks all wrong. I suggest that the two right hon. Gentlemen—the Liberal and the Conservative, a combine of two fellow Scotsmen—should put their heads together and really try to get a definition such as will be clear to the people inserted in the Schedule or seine part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is overlooking the Clause to which the Secretary of State for Scotland referred, Clause 11, which shuts out any possibility of putting in any more precise definition regarding millable wheat than appear there.

Sir P. HARRIS: We shall have to consider that Clause again on Report stage; it would be out of order to pursue the point further now. I want to help the
Minister. I want this Bill to work, and I want it to cause as little hardship to the milling industry and to give as much help to the farmer as possible. If we are to spend £6,000,000 we ought to get good value for our money, and I suggest that somewhere in the Bill words ought to be inserted to clear up this point.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I think the Minister of Agriculture ought to recognise that under this Bill we are going to subsidise the farmers. We have to consider what is the quality of the article for which the country will be called upon to pay. By this Bill we are calling upon the people of the country who eat bread to find £6,000,000 sterling to be paid in subsidies—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is going back upon what has already been decided by the Committee.

Mr. PRICE: I think "millable wheat" ought to be more definitely defined.

The CHAIRMAN: That question would be in order on Clause 11, but the matter has already been disposed of, and it cannot be discussed any further at this point.

Mr. LANSBURY: According to Clause 18 "millable wheat" means
wheat which conforms to the standard prescribed by regulations made by the Minister.
Why cannot we discuss what might be described by the Minister as "millable wheat" when he comes to prescribe it? There is nothing in this Bill to define "millable wheat." The Bill says it is wheat which conforms to the standard prescribed by the Minister. That is something which is really not described in the Bill at all, but in the regulations to be laid down by the Minister, and surely we are entitled to discuss that point.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Member must accept the interpretation here of the definition of "millable wheat" described in Clause 11, Subsection (1), or more correctly speaking in Clause 11, Subsection (1, a). By the adoption of Clause 11 the Committee has already disposed of the question as to what is "minable wheat," and how it may be ascertained whether any wheat
is millable. The definition given on the top of page 24 of the Bill is only for the purpose of interpreting the particular expression "millable wheat" wherever it occurs.

Mr. LANSBURY: Clause 11, Subsection (1) provides that
the Minister may, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, make regulations for giving effect to the provisions of this Act.
The Sub-section does not say "shall" but "may" make regulations.
Sub-section (1) proceeds:
and such regulations may in particular make provision—
(a) for prescribing the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be millable wheat.
I read that in connection with the words on the top of page 24 of the Bill which says:
'millable wheat' means wheat which conforms to the standard prescribed by regulations made by the Minister.
I submit that Clause 11 does not say anything at all as to what is millable wheat, but it says that the Minister may do certain things. I am arguing that this is not a satisfactory way of achieving that object.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to enter into an argument as to the difference between "may" and "shall." In this particular case, that question is sufficiently answered by saying that the Minister of Agriculture has to make this Measure as it is passed work. The Committee has already decided that millable wheat is such wheat as may be so under regulations made by the Minister for prescribing the standard to which such wheat must conform, and that question has been disposed of. The words at the top of page 24 of the Bill define what millable wheat means in accordance with Clause 11, and it provides that the expression "millable wheat" means the same thing in other places in the Bill where it occurs.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Clause will not convey what you and I, Mr. Chairman, say to one another across the Table.

The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly my point, but it will be defined under Clause 11.

Mr. LANSBURY: Clause 17 does not define millable wheat, but it says:
the Minister may".
You, Mr. Chairman, say that the Minister has to work the Act, and therefore he will have to define what is mill-able wheat We do not know what it is, and the Bill does not say who shall define it, but it says that the Minister may make regulations. We want to discuss what is and what is not millable wheat. Up to the present nobody has told us.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow this point to be discussed much further. The Committee has already decided what is millable wheat, and it is now beyond the bounds of the Committee to define mill-able wheat any further.

Mr. LANSBURY: Clause it says that the Minister "may" make regulations, but it does not say "shall."

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite sufficient for me to say that the Committee has-passed the Clause which gives tie Minister power to define what is millable wheat and, having done that, it would be out of order to define it in such a way as to take away that power from the Minister.

Mr. COVE: As I read Clause 11, and I have read it very carefully, it seems to me that it only gives power to the Minister to consult the Wheat Commission, who can only make regulations after that consultation has taken place—

The CHAIRMAN: This discussion is really going too far, and the hon. Member is now going back to a discussion of the meaning of Clause 11. I have shown quite clearly in my Rulings that a more definitive definition of millable wheat is not a matter which can be discussed on Clause 18, and I hope hon. Members will adhere to my Ruling.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Secretary of State for Scotland has given us what he states is the view of the Government as regards the probable meaning of millable wheat which is likely to be adopted in connection with the administration of this Bill. There is only one thing I want to say, in order that we may have it quite certain that there will be no doubt as to the precise meaning of those words.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that this Bill will only apply to wheat which would be ordinarily milled. We know from what has been said by the Minister of Agriculture and his Department that the wheat which would ordinarily be milled is 15 per cent. of the total wheat grown in this country. [Interruption.] At any rate, the percentage is somewhere between 9 and 15 per cent. I am sure the Lord President of the Council will agree with me as a farmer that what I have stated is what is meant, and the Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that it is only to 10 per cent, of the wheat that the subsidy will apply at all.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I want to put one or two questions to the Minister on this Clause. First of all, I want to ask a question in regard to the interpretations contained in this Clause. Last week, I raised a point in regard to the interpretation of the word "custom," and the reply given by the Minister of Agriculture did not give any interpretation at all of the meaning of the word "custom" in Clause 12. I should have thought that Clause 18, which deals with interpretations, would have given some meaning to that word. In the definition of the word "miller" in this Clause I want to know what is meant by the word "person." I can understand that a farmer is a person, but the millers of this country are sometimes limited liability companies. There is, for example, the Co-operative Wholesale Society. I want to know if the word "person" includes such organisations as the Co-operative Wholesale Society. I also wish to know where the Isle of Man stands under this Bill. I do not see a word about the Isle of Man in the interpretation Clause. Sub-section (1) of the Clause provides that
'Cereal year' means the period of 12 months beginning on the first day of August in every year and ending on the thirty-first day of July next following.
What is happening in this country at the moment? I am not so sure that this Bill will fit in with the complete change in the climatic conditions which appertain to this country now. We have had 65 days without rain, even in Manchester—

The CHAIRMAN: That argument would be more in order on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. DAVIES: I will ask one more question. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us whether the word "person" does include limited liability companies, and such organisations as the Co-operative Wholesale Society, or any other body of millers?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The word "person" is a recognised legal term which includes corporations, and so it must include the Co-operative Wholesale Society. In reply to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), when I said that millable wheat meant wheat that would be ordinarily milled, I did not mean any particular parcel of wheat, but wheat which would be ordinarily milled under the provisions of this Bill, and I was referring to the type, kind, or quality of wheat.

Sir S. CHIRPS: I was not referring to-any particular sample a wheat, but only to the 10 per cent. which is ordinarily milled, and in no case could it exceed 10 per cent. of the crop.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am informed that the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in the proportion of 10 percent. which he gives, but, at any rate, it is not limited in quantity under my definition. There is no intention to limit it as to quantity, and I did not intend so to indicate when I put it first. It is not a limitation as to quantity, but as to quality; it is limited to the sort of wheat that is ordinarily milled. That is the intention of the Bill.

Mr. DENMAN: In an administrative Clause it is a merit that the definitions should be clear. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he really means by "home-grown." Does he mean grown in the United Kingdom by a registered grower, or does he mean grown by a grower registered in the United, Kingdom? If he means either of these two things, why does he not say so?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: it is quite clear. The Clause says:
'Home-grown' means grown by registered growers in the United Kingdom.

Mr. DENMAN: Grown or registered?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Registered in the United Kingdom.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Does the right hon Gentleman mean that, if a grower who has been registered in the United Kingdom grows wheat in Canada on a ranch, that wheat will come under this Bill?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not. I give him a solemn and clear and definite assurance that it does not mean that.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 2289; Noes, 39.

Division No. 129.]
AYES.
[4.47 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cross, R. H.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Crossley, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Albery, Irving James
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandaman (B'k'nh'd.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dickie, John P.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Atholl, Duchess of
Donner, P. W.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Atkinson, Cyril
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Ker, J. Campbell


Bailey, Erie Alfred George
Drewe, Cedric
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duckworth, George A. V.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duggan, Hubert John
Knebworth, Viscount


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Eastwood, John Francis
Knight, Holford


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Beaumont, M. w. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Elmley, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leckie, J. A.


Blindell, James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lees-Jones, John


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Bossom, A. C.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Levy, Thomas


Boulton, w. W.
Falle Sir Bertram G.
Liddall, Walter S.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Llewellin, Major John J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Buchan, John
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Burghley, Lord
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mabane, William


Burnett, John George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Goldie, Noel B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gower, Sir Robert
McKie, John Hamilton


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Granville, Edgar
McLean, Major Alan


Carver, Major William H.
Graves, Marjorie
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hales, Harold K.
Martin, Thomas B.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Clarke, Frank
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Clarry, Reginald George
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Cochrane, Commander A. D.
Hartland, George A.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Conant, R. J. E.
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Mitcheson, G. G.


Cook, Thomas A.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cooke, Douglas
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hellger, Captain F. F. A.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Copeland, Ida
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, William Shephard


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hornby, Frank
Moss, Captain H. J.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Horobin, Ian M.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Rosbotham, S. T.
Taylor, vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Templeton, William P.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


North, Captain Edward T.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Nunn, William
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Salmon, Major Isidore
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Patrick, Colin M.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Peake, Captain Osbert
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Turton, Robert Hugh


Pearson, William G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Peat, Charles U.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Scone, Lord
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Petherick, M
Selley, Harry R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Pike, Cecil F.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Potter, John
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. sir A. (C'thness)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Weymouth, Viscount


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Rea, Walter Russell
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Womersley, Walter James


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingslsy


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stanley, Hon, O. F. G. (Westmorland)



Robinson, John Roland
Strauss, Edward A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Adams, D. M (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Satey, Joseph
Harris, Sir Percy
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cowan, D. M.
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 19.—(Short title.)

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 25, line 35, at the end, to add the words:
(2) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven.
I had thought, in moving this Amendment, of quoting in extenso the speech made last week by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), because I think the Amendment is fully justified by the observations of the Noble Lady on that occasion. The Noble Lady not only referred to the danger of giving huge doles to any section of the community, but emphasised the impropriety of giving a dole for an unlimited period without any public safeguard. Even if a case has been made out for asking the taxpayer or the bread consumer to come to the aid of the wheat producer, at least we ought to limit the period during which this dole
should be exacted from the consumers of bread and handed over to the producers of wheat.
I observe, from replies to questions, that the right hon. Gentleman gives little or no encouragement to Members of this Committee to allow this Bill to pass without limitation as to time or as to expenditure by the State, and, while we are in this state of uncertainty, I note that the farmers in various parts of the country, having tasted blood, are, like Oliver Twist, persistently demanding more. I notice that an hon. Member who represents one of the Hull divisions has indicated that the East Riding farmers have been doing so. They are not only not content with the right hon. Gentleman's guarantee of permanent profits, but they demand an increase of the standard price from 45s. to 50s., and they demand that the maximum output of millable wheat shall be increased from 6,000,000 quarters to 8,000,000 quarters.
What other guarantees they are going to demand from the right hon. Gentleman in course of time nobody can prophesy at this moment, unless it happens to be the Minister himself. Therefore, it seems to us that we are entitled to invite the right hon. Gentleman to place a time limit upon the operation of the Bill.
We may be referred to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, which we have already discussed, but that affords no guarantee to the House that any sort of quid pro quo will be forthcoming from the farmers of this country. A question was put to the right hon. Gentleman to-day by one of his own supporters us to how many marketing schemes have been prepared under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, but all that he could tell us was that, despite the efforts of this National Government, despite their willingness to give the farmers this £6,000,000 per annum without any sort of condition or safeguard, the only response that has been made so far has been that the National Farmers' Union have passed a resolution on the subject of marketing. The National Pig Council have also passed a resolution.
5.0 p.m.
That is the length to which the farmers have gone if the right hon. Gentleman's information on the point is very full. Therefore, we say five years is a very long period during which bread consumers shall be called upon to pay when the farmers themselves do so little to encourage the House of Commons to assist themselves over a very trying period. At least they ought to show willingness to improve their methods of production and distribution and sales. It may not cover the margin between present prices and what would be an economic price, but at least the gap ought to be bridged as far as it can by improved efficiency and by the most perfect marketing schemes that can be produced. We should be justified in assisting a section of growers, whatever the commodity may be, if they are making excessive losses through no fault of their own. There is, however, nothing that has been done or that is in contemplation by the farmers that gives that encouragement that we feel ought to be forthcoming from them. I will quote from a Noble Lord in another place, who has written a very important book, in which as states:
Is it not unprecedented to guarantee out of the public purse to a branch of an industry that it shall never make a loss but shall always make a profit? One could defend a statutory figure which would guarantee farmers, provided they were efficient, against excessive loss when the bottom drops out temporarily of the market owing to abnormal conditions. One could justify a purely temporary tide-over subsidy. But such is not the plan. Is it not unstatesmanlike to base a national policy on an attempt to cope with a really local and, in part, a temporary difficulty.
The whole scheme of the right hon. Gentleman is a hotch-potch which is extremely difficult to understand and, as he has already discovered, impossible of explaining away and defining in the House. It would not be ungracious to him to say he ought to take a step towards the opposition in limiting the time of the operation of the Bill if only to inspire the farmers to do the best they can for themselves. In five years time it would be quite easy to determine what acreage ought to be under wheat, and we should not be susceptible to such demands as are being made by the farmers of the West Riding of Yorkshire. I can bring to my aid a very well known Member of the Government, who not only deprecates the scheme as much as any of us but proclaims himself an absolute opponent in this Chamber. I refer to the Home Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN: I think there are limits to which the discussion can go on this Clause. The Amendment is to put a limit to the duration of the Act, but that does not mean that you can discuss the whole of the excellencies or iniquities of the Bill as if it were a Second or a Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself strictly to his reasons for limiting the duration of the Act to a certain period.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Surely, if the Amendment is in order at all, one must be permitted to debate the consequences of the Bill without limitation of time, and its general effect upon the consumers of wheat?

The CHAIRMAN: No, certainly not. There would be no end to what could be discussed if the Debate was allowed to go as far as that. The hon. Gentleman may say he thinks it should come to an end as soon as possible because he considers it bad, but he must not go on to describe why it is bad, and quote other people who have condemned the prin-
ciple that is proposed to be enshrined in the Bill before the Bill was even adopted. It is obvious that quotations from speeches on the principle of the Bill at such a time could not be made use of for the purpose of discussing how long it should remain in operation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: While I should hesitate at all times to disagree with your Ruling, Sir, it should surely be permissible to refer to the extraordinary nature of the Measure in an effort to provide justification for limiting the time during which it ought to operate. Not to be permitted to do that would make the Amendment so narrow that discussion would be well nigh impossible.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman may try how far the Chair will permit him to go. He can give, as a reason for limiting it, that it is bad, but I cannot allow him to go through all its iniquities on an Amendment of this kind. He will realise that he may differ from my view, but unfortunately for him he is obliged to follow it.

Mr. LAWSON: Would it not be permissible to show that the logic of the principle on which the Bill is based—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now putting hypothetical questions of order to me which are unnecessary. I have told the hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the Committee the limits beyond which I thought he was transgressing, and it will be my duty, if I think he is doing so again, to tell him so, but I really cannot discuss hypothetical questions.

Mr. LAWSON: This principle of the limitation of time was discussed very regularly during the last Parliament, and my experience actually was that it led to what resembled Second and Third Reading Debates.

The CHAIRMAN: We will hope that perhaps this Parliament will show an improvement on the last.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I most certainly shall not contest your Ruling further, Sir. One may differ from a ruling, but one must always accept it in the spirit in which it is given. The quotation that I was about to make was one upon imports of wheat and surpluses held in all the wheat-growing parts of the world, to show that the
problem of wheat growers was not likely to be permanently solved by the mere temporary expedient of providing such a subsidy as this. In a period of five years the farmers themselves will have determined on what acreage wheat can be grown on an economic basis and on what area other commodities might be grown with advantage to the farmer and to the State. We import annually £230,000,000 worth of agricultural products which might very well be produced on some of the land that is now producing wheat. We do not want to see such an extension of wheat growing on unsuitable land as will ultimately place the farmer in a worse position than he is in now.
We are opposed to the Clause, first of all because no guarantees are given to the consumers or to the State, secondly, because we think this method is a very bad one which ought to be terminated by a given date. We think that a period of five years, during which time £30,000,000 may have been extracted from the pockets of bread consumers and handed over to farmers, is long enough. It surely ought to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the Opposition are willing to accept the political situation that they find themselves in and allow this extraordinary Measure to remain on the Statute Book for five years, he ought at least to take some step towards the Opposition and give some indication to the agricultural community that they are not going to be perpetually guaranteed profits, though temporarily their losses may be avoided. If he will do that, he will not only find that his forward move would be welcomed by Members on these benches, but I think his own supporters would welcome his acceptance of the Amendment.

Mr. HENRY HASLAM: The hon. Gentleman gave us his first reason for bringing the Bill to a close in five years that it was to meet a temporary crisis. I presume he meant that the present prices of wheat are not likely to continue, but he did not give us any evidence to show that, and many good judges think the present prices may continue for a very considerable period. Another argument was that he wanted to encourage farmers to use better methods. He also mentioned the price of 45s. as one which would give them undue profits. I can assure him that that price, in the case of most
farmers, will barely suffice to pay the cost of growing. It leaves very little margin. There is, perhaps, a certain amount of encouragement and farmers may try to wring a small profit at this guaranteed price, but to suppose for a moment that the farmer will attempt that very difficult task if the whole thing is to be brought to an end in five years is surely to do the very opposite of what the hon. Gentleman says he desires, and that is to encourage farmers to improve their methods of wheat growing. What the farmer wants is some sort of permanence and stability. He has been let down time and again. He has now come to the end of his resources and the question that is agitating Members on this side is how farmers are going to be tided over the next few months. To pass a Bill of this nature, which will only just enable them to keep going, and at the same time to say the whole thing is to be terminated in five years is surely one of the most discouraging things that could be said. There is provision in the Bill that the price may be varied at the end of only three years, and hon. Members opposite seem to have overlooked that point. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) spoke as if the same prices would necessarily continue throughout the five years to which he desires to limit the Act. In point of fact, there is a possibility that it may be varied during that time. For all those reasons, I very much hope that the Minister will reject the Amendment.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I support the Amendment, because it decides the principle as to whether there is to be a permanent subsidy or a temporary subsidy. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland led us to believe that his support was given to the Bill because it was temporary in character, and I ask the Government to accept the Amendment in order to confirm that statement. It is true to say that the greatest incentive to a farmer to make his business efficient through reorganisation and marketing will be given if he does not feel that there is to be a permanent subsidy given to his industry. If the Government really wish us to believe that this is a temporary Measure to assist the farmers at a time, as we all agree, of difficulty, they will accept the Amendment.

Major GWILYM LLOYD GEORGE: The Committee are entitled to know whether the proposal of the Bill is to be of a permanent or of a temporary character. The Amendment limits it to five years. There was a similar principle in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, when, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council who was responsible for the Bill at the time stated definitely that in his opinion five years, which was the limit put to that Measure, was sufficient for any industry to establish itself and to be able to meet competition. It is interesting to note that the opinion of the Conservative Government of 1926 upon these subsidies was as follows. In their agricultural policy, which was published as a White Paper in 1926, they said:
A subsidy may sometimes be justified as a purely temporary expedient or if it is required to start a new industry like beet sugar, but any general scheme of subsidies for agriculture is open to the gravest objection. They would have to be unlimited in duration and very large in amount to have any material effect in increasing the arable area or the number of workers employed.
Therefore, if that was the opinion of the Conservative party at that time, they have to make up their minds on one of two things. They have to make up their minds whether it is to be a permanent subsidy or not, or they have to decide for a certain specific period to pay a sum of money to wheat-growers in this country. Let them know definitely that there will be no more money forthcoming at the end of that period, and that during the period when the subsidy is being paid they must do what they can to turn over to a more profitable form of farming. That this is a, subsidy there can be no question. If it is a subsidy, it is a permanent subsidy because when prices are low the difference will have to be paid, and when wheat prices are high there will be no subsidy paid. The only time the subsidy will cease is when fairly big prices, approximating to 45s. a qr., prevail. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) stated that there were prospects that wheat prices would go up.

Mr. HASLAM: I said that prices might have a small rise, but there was no indication that prices would rise at all.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I beg the hon Gentleman's pardon. That simply
strengthens my case, because that is one of the reasons why I suggest that the subsidy is likely to be a permanent one. The report of the Imperial Economic Committee on the Wheat Situation states definitely that their conclusion on the facts was:
That in the absence of some unexpected influence, they establish the expectation over a long period of years, of a continuous struggle—possibly a protracted and painful struggle—between those farmers who by adapting new technique or otherwise are able to reduce costs and those who fail to do so. Such a struggle implies a low level of prices. It implies also a continuation of the progressive decrease in the numbers employed in wheat production as labour saving machinery is adopted.
Quite definitely they are of opinion that, considering all the circumstances throughout the world, the likelihood would be that prices of wheat would remain low, and therefore the subsidy we are to pay is more than likely to be permanent unless we have a time limit to it. Apart from the War period, it will be observed that the prices of wheat—at any rate from the average price during the last few years—are not likely to go up to any great extent. It is well that the people should be told of the circumstances and of the likelihood of this being a permanent subsidy. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister that he hopes to put another 400,000 acres, under wheat. Under the subsidy you will find that we are paying the labour costs of the whole of the wheat acreage, including the 400,000 acres he hopes to add. The labour costs are to be free. We are entitled to know whether it is to be permanent or not, and whether the consumers are to pay the whole of the labour costs of the wheat-producing areas of this country. We could buy all the wheat which is to be grown on the extra 400,000 acres, and we could give each of the 13,000 men to be employed £100 a year free. We could also give away the wheat we bought and still have well over £2,000,000 left. The country ought to know that. Is it going to be a permanent charge? The right hon. Gentleman, apparently, disagrees with my figures. If he likes to challenge them he may do so, and I will repeat them for his special benefit. Thirteen thousand more people may be employed upon 400,000 acres of wheat. Those are the right hon. Gentleman's own figures. You can buy the whole of the
wheat produced upon 400,000 acres at present world prices and give it away entirely free. You can give those 13,000 men £100 a year free, and you will still have £2,000,000 or more left over on the £6,000,000 subsidy. That is what it means. Surely we are entitled to know whether the country is to be permanently charged with that kind of thing in the name of helping agriculture.
Under the second proposition, that is to say, the Government stating definitely that there is to be a time limit to the Measure and that they are to let wheat farmers have a sum of money to tide them over a time of changing to other things, they would be encouraging farmers to take up those branches of the industry which, at any rate, bad as times are, are more profitable than wheat growing, and far more suited to our climate. It is no good saying that it is not going to encourage wheat farming, because it is going to do so. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), speaking the other day, said that he had seen in France most unsuitable soil put down to wheat. It is interesting to observe that there is a tax of about 30s. a quarter on wheat going to France and a 97 per cent. subsidy. The same sort of thing might possibly happen in this country. In any case, why do not the Government state definitely that they will, for a certain period of time, help the wheat farmers out of their difficulties, but that after that they must look after themselves? I believe that if there was a plan, the country would not mind paying if it put the agricultural industry upon its feet. But there is another question as to whether wheat growing will ever be an economic proposition in this country in view of world tendencies, and the queer thing is that the Government have already penalised those engaged in a branch of farming which is likely to be profitable. All their feeding costs have gone up, and what they produce has practically no protection. I will quote another sentence from the White Paper of 1926 which I commend heartily to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who are seeing the Bill through:
From a purely economic point of view, it will probably be better business for the British farmer to devote his energies as largely as possible to the livestock industry
and to aim at meeting the demands of the population for meat and milk.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would be rendering a far greater service to agricultural interests and to the people of this country if he stated definitely that at the end of five years this payment would cease, and that during that five years he expected British farmers to get down to farming those products from which they were likely to make a profit.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: There is upon the Paper in my name an Amendment which is very similar to the present Amendment, and it may be that hon. Members might expect that I should on this occasion vote for the Amendment under discussion. On the contrary, I think that the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister gave on 16th March, and which appears in column 326 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that in the Government's opinion it is right to give a definite undertaking for a period of time, and that at the end of that period the subject should be reviewed, answers the Amendment amply. I am content that what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion will cover my Amendment also.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: We are grievously disappointed to find that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) will not vote with us. On the last occasion when he said he would, he did not do so, and we are left to ourselves once more to oppose the Government. We oppose the Government on this occasion with more strength and confidence, because we have not heard a single argument against the Amendment, and no Member opposite has ventured to state that the Bill is to be permanent. If it is not to be permanent, why not accept the reasonable time limit which we are proposing? The right hon. Gentleman has told us time and time again that he has a plan for the reorganisation of agriculture, and we have offered to co-operate with him. We think that the right hon. Gentleman should assume responsibility for the first Five-Year Plan in the history of Britain. The right hon. Gentleman does not look the part, but with a little disguise he could be made to look the part of a member of the Praesidium in Moscow, for a five-
year plan for the reorganisation of the agricultural industry. After all, the principle is the same as that which has been applied in Russia. It is to produce above cost price in order to build up an industry which is not able to stand upon its own feet. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is to cost the country a considerable sum of money each year.
5.30 p.m.
We ask the Minister to make a declaration to-day that five years from now would be a very reasonable period of time, at the end of which this form of Governmental assistance should come to an end. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee recognise that the subsidy is to be paid, but we wish it to be paid in a way which will have the most efficacious results. The right hon. Gentleman hopes to put the industry on a more or less suitable footing and to see 1,800,000 acres under wheat. We do not oppose the growing of wheat on suitable land, but we do say that there ought to be some test of the suitability of the land and the methods of cultivation, and that can only be shown by the results. If at the end of five years or of 10 years we have still to pay a subsidy for wheat, all our efforts will have failed and the Minister of Agriculture will have wasted the country's money in trying to sustain an agricultural crop which is not suitable for this country. We want to share with him the work of reorganising agriculture, and we are prepared to allow this subsidy to go through, under protest, for a short time, but we hope that it will not be necessary to pay this very large subsidy for more than five years, or even for five years.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) gave us some figures in a new light. Let me demonstrate that the figures have a much more serious bearing upon agriculture. We are not only going to pay the full wages to 50,000 men at 30s. a week if we are to pay the full subsidy, which will amount to between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, but in addition we shall pay £1 rent for every one of the 1,800,000 acres on which the wheat is to be grown. We are going to pay the wages of all the agricultural labourers who will be employed and also the rent of the land, in order that this wheat may be grown. That cannot be denied. If the subsidy
works out at the present price and is maintained for five years, we shall have paid a sum averaging £18 to £20 an acre on all the land engaged in wheat cultivation. We shall have bought the land out at its average freehold agricultural value in the five years. If the Minister thinks that it is not enough for assistance to agriculture to pay the value of the land as well as to pay the wages of the agricultural labourers, he is not very easily satisfied.
I lived in Canada for a while and saw wheat growing there. I have also travelled over the Hungarian and Russian wheat fields. Perhaps hon. Members opposite will not like me for confessing that I have been to Russia. I saw wheat growing there under conditions entirely dissimilar to the conditions under which wheat is grown at home. In one of the Midland counties of England I have seen with despair the conditions under which wheat cultivation is carried on. I saw in a field, hardly more than 10 times the length of this House and only about 50 or 60 yards in width, three horses and two men travelling at the rate of about 1½ to 2 miles an hour. At the end of the 50 or 60 yards they had to turn round, slowly and laboriously, and start back again. I did not measure the work that might be done, but I submit that those three horses and the two men could not plough more than half an acre a day, judging from the performance that I saw. Wheat growing under those conditions in Britain is hopeless in competition with wheat growing in other parts of the world.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will perhaps bear in mind the Ruling that I have already given. He must not go into a general discussion on this Amendment.

Mr. GRENFELL: I have no desire to depart from your Ruling. My point is, that conditions such as those I have described cannot be maintained for ever. What the Minister needs to find out are the economic limits of wheat cultivation. We want to encourage the growing of wheat, but we want a limited sum of money for capital expenditure devoted to the cost of levelling down the fields and providing the farmer with tractors and other machinery suitable for cul-
tivation. If we are to subsidise the wheat industry we desire that it should be done only for a limited time. There comes a time when every subsidy becomes a scandal, and this subsidy will become a national scandal if it goes on year after year enriching the farmer, enriching the landlord, who makes no contribution to the change in agriculture, and does not really serve the purpose that is intended. Five years is a long enough time to allow. By that time the farmer ought to be able to improve his methods, to take his coat off and to open his mind to the new ideas and to the science that is being brought into agriculture. Tell the farmer that he will get assistance, more than he deserves, for a short time, and then let him get busy. If he does not get his farm in order and his wheat cultivation in order in five years, tell him that he will never become the kind of farmer that we wish him to be. When five years have elapsed the Minister of Agriculture will have paid away enough money, not the Government's money, not his own money, not my money but mostly the money of the poorer people who will have to foot the bill.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I need hardly say that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. It is quite clear from the previous discussions that we have had on the Bill that the plan of the Government is, frankly, to give the farmer a definite three years of certainty, in so far as human beings can make that so. At the end of that period we are providing that the circumstances shall be revised by individuals who will have at their disposal a knowledge of all the circumstances. It would be the height of folly for the Government to-day to forecast or prejudge what will happen at that time. It is not within our power to do so. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) quoted some remarks by a Noble Lord in another place. I understand that those remarks were made prior to the introduction of the Bill and upon the assumption that we were proceeding to deal with the problem on different lines.
I have listened carefully to the views that have been expressed. It has been said on the one hand that the farmers should be told that they do not know their business, that they must realise that
wheat growing is a thing which they ought to drop, and that they must turn their minds to more profitable forms of farming. What are those more profitable forms of farming? Do we not hear today very loudly expressed the views of the stock raisers, who say that their form of farming is not profitable. If we are to argue upon the lines followed by the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) that we could deal with this subject more easily by buying the wheat and, by some means which I did not entirely follow, give a subsidy to a certain number of people in this country, we could apply the same argument to the chilled meat brought from the Argentine, and elsewhere. There is no saying where that sort of argument would stop.
If we are to keep our countryside alive we must have a balanced form of agriculture. Are there any Members of this House, to whatever party they belong, who are going to say that we will not have wheat growing of some form in this country? If so, they ought to let the farming community know that. That is not the line of the National Government. We hold, and rightly so, that we ought to keep a certain proportion of our arable cultivation under wheat, and keep the balance for the other forms of agriculture. We desire to see the most modern methods of dealing with the problem pursued. We desire that the farmers should try by every means in their power, and we believe that this Bill will encourage them to market their produce under the most economical methods, and to produce their wheat in the best form. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) spoke of his great admiration for the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said that this was a temporary Bill. Whatever admiration he had for that speech, he voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. In the circumstances, the Government are right in resisting this Amendment and relying upon the investigation of the problem three years hence by those who are well qualified to do it.

Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the skill with which he manages his team. I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland comes down and joins in the Debate for a short time, but whenever
these awkward questions come up as to whether the Act is to be permanent or the subsidy permanent, somehow or other he has urgent business elsewhere, and he fades away. We then find good solid Conservative Members supporting the right hon. Gentleman and backing up the idea that this shall be a more or less permanent subsidy. There is no hon. and right hon. Gentleman present on whose cheek there need come any blush, because the temporaries have been carefully moved out of the way. It is a very important question whether this subsidy should be permanent or temporary. The right hon. Gentleman says that the whole matter is to be reviewed by a committee three years hence—one of those blessed committees of which this Government is even more fecund than its predecessor. That committee is going to consider the economic circumstances, but the right hon. Gentleman has very carefully avoided putting in the Bill any kind of instruction to the committee.
They are to look at the economic circumstances. Suppose they come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam), who said that in his view the farmer would not be able to grow wheat at a profit for a long time, although he thought there might be a small improvement in the price. Suppose that the committee report on those lines. What action is to follow? Will it be said that it is a bad business and that they bad better get out of it? The hon. Member for Horncastle says: "It is a bad business. No one can make a profit, and therefore we must continue the subsidy." Which is the policy of the Government We know the policy of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He says the Measure is of a temporary nature to tide the farmer over until he has changed to more remunerative forms of agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture threw out a challenge to us by asking us what are these more remunerative forms of agriculture. If he will send one of the Whips for the Secretary of State for Scotland he will be able to tell him about that. He knows the "more remunerative forms of agriculture."
The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants a balanced agriculture. He might say that all agriculture is unprofitable. In that case two courses are open to him. He could join with the hon. Member for
Edinburgh East (Mr. D. Mason) who wants this country to be purely industrial, not agricultural, or he could give a temporary subsidy to a certain part of agriculture. But that does not explain why the right hon. Gentleman should select the particular form of agriculture which all experts agree is the least likely to be remunerative in the future. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the support given in this Bill is to be permanent. Not only is the acreage to be maintained, but it is to be increased, and, if it is increased beyond the figure which the Bill lays down, the penalties are not very heavy, and Parliament will still pay a subsidy, though slightly reduced. Everyone knows the reason why the Minister of Agriculture is not able to make this a temporary subsidy. This is not an attempt to reconstruct agriculture; it is merely a sop to a certain number of followers of the Conservative party. We have never denied that there is a case for a temporary support of cereal cultivation in the Eastern Counties, if it is given under stringent conditions, which will make for a balanced agricultural policy in those areas. But that is not the plan of the Government.
When you have stripped the Bill of all its verbiage it is merely putting a sum of money extracted from the pockets of the consumers into the pockets of the farmers. That is all this Bill amounts to and the right hon. Gentleman cannot afford in present political circumstances to say to the farmers that it is only temporary, because, if he did so, he would have to review the Government's policy as a whole. As it amounts to a 10 per cent. tariff on agricultural produce it is only a disguised way of doing it in order to satisfy the uneasy conscience of the Secretary of State for Scotland and those who are not prepared to bring in Protection on wheat by means of a tariff. The right hon. Gentleman cannot afford to make this temporary, because it is only a part of the Government's protectionist policy, which is designed to set up a number of vested interests. The rejection of this Amendment, coupled with the rejection of the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) who ran away, and supported by the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) who did not run away, shows clearly that the Government have
no thought-out agricultural policy but are merely following the method of an unconditional subsidy; and, when you examine it, it is quite characteristic of the Conservative party and their care for vested interests.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: I represent an industrial constituency, that is to say, a constituency which is not agricultural, but I have no hesitation in throwing my weight, for whatever it is worth, against the Amendment, and I am sure that my constituents will back me up when I say that I hope the Government will not for one moment agree to it. If I were asked what I consider is the problem of the future I would put it in this way, that so long as present conditions exist I hope a wheat quota will be in existence. What is it which everybody wants, whether he is in a factory, in a workshop or on the land? He wants a long vista in front of him of reasonable security in order to know what he is going to do in the future. We want to create security. There are two great words in the English language which should be in the mind of everyone in this House, I think of them every day—security and production. In those two words is contained everything which is going to make for the prosperity of this old country of ours. Hon. Members opposite get up and talk about having a wheat quota for three years, or four years or five years. We want to instil into the agriculturists the idea that this Parliament knows its own mind and that it is going to look after agricultural interests. We want to be able to say to the farmers that we have given them security.
Hon. Members opposite have said in my hearing that we cannot grow wheat in this country. It is a remark that has astonished me. This is the finest wheat-growing country in the world. Where is it beaten? Even in dear old Scotland we can produce 38 to 40 bushels an acre. Canada produces 16 to 17, the United States 12 or 14, and Australia 12 or 14. I believe that 38 and 40 bushels per acre will be a very small yield in the future. All sorts of new devices are coming along. I have tried one or two of them myself; and in my opinion the price of wheat will come down in the future and instead of receiving 45s. farmers will be satisfied with 40s. or even 35s. per bushel. I believe that within the course of the next few years 80 and 90 bushels
per acre under certain conditions will be raised. Some 18 months ago I planted wheat in a different way from that which is generally followed in this country. I planted wheat like you plant potatoes—4 inches apart. The roots of that wheat are as wide round as the palms of my hand, and from each of these roots come the incredible number of 28 to 36 ears of corn with 66 grains in each ear. That is a yield of over 2,000 grains per root. If you go into a cornfield you will find that the average is 1¼ to 1½ ears on each stalk. To take the quota away in three years' time will be most detrimental to the agricultural industry, to which we want to give every security.
As the representative of an industrial constituency in the capital of Scotland I am sure that my constituents would wish me to say that the land and the town flourish and thrive together, or die and decay together. We want to see the land flourishing, and I am wholehearted in support of the policy of the Government and delighted that we have a Scotsman of such eminence conducting this Bill through the House of Commons. Hon. Members opposite who represent industrial constituencies have on every occasion tried to hamper the industry and we shall be able to point to this fact throughout Scotland. We shall take good care to show that the Socialist party have not gauged the situation properly. The only result of insecurity is decay; the result of security is growth.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Sir S. Chapman) has given us a very good speech, and if he had gone on a little longer it seems to me that there would have been no case for any subsidy art all. He made out that the agricultural industry was profitable and was going to be so profitable in the future that there is really no need for this subsidy. And when he went on to say that we can grow wheat better in this country than in any other country I began to wonder why this Bill was ever brought before Parliament. I could have wished, however, that he had given a little thought to his industrial constituents—

Sir S. CHAPMAN: They have consulted me on all occasions, and they sent me back at the last election unopposed.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: That is a very good answer, but we on these benches have also been returned to speak on behalf of our constituents and we come from industrial centres. That is why we are supporting this Amendment. We want something definite. We want to know whether this is to be temporary or permanent. The Minister of Agriculture should declare one way or the other. The followers of the right hon. Gentleman believe it to be a permanent subsidy but the Minister himself says that it is only temporary. We ask that he should be more definite, because under this Bill the country has to find £6,000,000 per year. That sum will have to come out of the bread box. Some say that it will mean one half-penny on the 4-lb. loaf, others that it will mean one farthing. In either case, think what it means in the very poorest homes. I calculate that it means one shilling per week extra on the price of bread in the case of large families. The poorer the family the more bread they consume in comparison with other foods. In any working-class home the mother, if she wants to fill the stomachs of her children and has not the means to buy other delicacies, buys bread as the chief ingredient for dishes that contain a large quantity of bread. Therefore, proportionately, the cost of bread is greater to a working-class household than to a family in any other class. That is why we want to know for how long the Minister proposes to make this subsidy or deficiency payment operative for the benefit of the farmers and the millers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be quite candid with us. If he has it in his mind that the subsidy is to go on for all time let him say so. If he thinks it should end in 1940 or 1938 or 1936 or on any date, let him tell us, and we shall be satisfied that we have an answer. The hon. Member who spoke last thinks that the subsidy is to be permanent, that the present Government is to come back again and is to declare to the agricultural community that they are to have all that they want. This Amendment is put forward as a test, and we want a definite and conclusive answer. I hope the Minister will have courage to tell us what we want to know.

Mr. PRICE: I would remind the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S.
Chapman) that he made some astounding statements. First of all, he said that he came from an industrial constituency, and that he had the support of his electors in supporting this Bill, which is a direct tax on the food of the people and may be permanent. I come from an industrial constituency which during the General Election had placed before it by the National Conservative candidate the policy that is embodied in this Bill. He lost the contest and I was returned with a tremendous majority, not for the purpose of opposing the reorganisation of agriculture, but for the purpose of opposing the method adopted in this Bill for such reorganisation.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: For three years I have been advocating this scheme among my constituents. They have known all about it for three years, and it is because they are so knowledgeable on the point that they returned me to this House unopposed.

Mr. PRICE: The hon. Member says he has convinced an industrial constituency that a Bill of this type, dealing with agriculture at this time of day, is the right thing, although it places a levy on the poorest people in the land. All I can say is that the electors would not stand it in the constituency from which I come. The hon. Member also said that Socialists would do nothing for agriculture. We cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I said that the Socialists would not do the right thing.

Mr. PRICE: The Socialist party is ready and willing. We had never controdicted the idea that agriculture ought to be dealt with and reorganised, and that something ought to take the place of the present chaos. But what is the position here to-day? We are anxious to know whether this Bill is permanent or temporary. That is not merely because the Bill gives a subsidy. We are not opposed to subsidies of a temporary character in cases of national urgency. What we object to in this Bill is the method by which the subsidy is raised. The £6,000,000 that it is proposed to give to the wheat growers is not coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not out of the pockets of the rich, but from the homes of the poorest people in the country. We say that that is the wrong
way to reorganise British agriculture. The landlords are called upon to make no sacrifice at all. We have been told about wheat-growing in Continental countries. The fact is that there is not a land in the world in which farmers pay such a high rent as in this country. If it is intended to reorganise agriculture on the backs of the children, let the Government say so. If that is not the intention, let agriculture be reorganised so that those who are best able to carry the burden carry their fair share.
That is not the proposal of the Bill. As far as we know, this Bill is permanently to put a tax on bread. It has been said quite rightly that the Bill is like a supertax which begins at the wrong end; instead of putting an increased tax on people as they get richer this Bill puts the greatest tax on the poorest. That is why we are anxious to have a limitation of a subsidy paid in this way. It was all very well for the hon. Member for South Edinburgh to say that the farmer wants security. I have been a collier all my life, and I have wanted security, but I have not found it yet. Is there any reason why we should begin to give security to the farmer and reorganise agriculture on the backs of the poor? The Committee have a right to weigh this thing up with a real sense of proportion. We have never denied that something ought to be done for British agriculture, but we suggest that as the Bill makes the cost payable by the poorest of the poor it ought at least to be limited in its period of operation.

Mr. McKIE: How does the hon. Member propose to assist agriculture if he refuses to take any steps to safeguard it?

Mr. PRICE.: We have an agricultural policy both for safeguarding and reorganising agriculture. We say that the people who are best able to bear the cost of reorganisation should pay for it. We should start from the top and not from the bottom. In the discussions in this House before Christmas, when food taxes were being challenged from this side, we were told by Government spokesmen that the Government did not intend to tax food. It was understood that this Bill would be some kind of temporary help to the farmer, to aid him in weathering the storm. Now we find that the
Minister will not give any undertaking to make the Bill temporary. All I can say is that the people outside were totally misled on the subject at the last election. It is a poor country and it is poor statesmanship that promotes any Bill for the reorganisation of any industry by attempting to put the cost on the poorest children in the land.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do hope that the Minister will give us a further statement as to what is the policy of the Government. He must surely have forgotten what his right hon. colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said on the Second Reading of the Bill:
This Bill, however, does not stereotype existing conditions of farming in this country. On the contrary, it is a temporary lifebuoy thrown to the farmers who have been caught at a more serious disadvantage than other farmers by the slump in prices. It is intended to check the decay on the wheat farms, and prevent them becoming derelict while the necessary process of adaptation, which we fully recognise is necessary to the new economic conditions, is proceeding.
A little further on he said:
Only recently a correspondent of the 'Times' urged that there should be no limit imposed, but that in his view it would be unreasonable that it should extend beyond a period of 10 years, which is rather longer than I should give it."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 1st March, 1932; col. 1074, Vol. 262.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman say frankly whether that speech states the policy of the Government, or whether the policy of the Government is to make this Bill permanent? Surely we are entitled to have that information before the Committee pass this Clause. The Minister cannot want some Members of the National Government to go to the country and say, "You need not be frightened. This is not a permanent Bill, but only a temporary Bill," while others will say, "Look at this permanent benefit that we have got for the farmer." That is what is happening at the moment. Some hon. Members opposite are hailing this as a permanent benefit to the wheat-growing farmer.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: So long as the present conditions exist.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) is not the Minister.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to those of us who sit behind the Government Front Bench. I said what the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned and I am prepared to say it over and over again, in spite of anything that the hon. and learned Gentleman now declares.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not in the least dispute the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman any more than he disputes our sincerity in this matter. The hon. Member will agree that it is clearly right that the country should know one thing or the other—is this scheme permanent or is it temporary? The Minister, I am sure, will feel encouraged to rise in his place and tell us quite specifically either that the Secretary of State for Scotland was wrong and was not stating the policy of the Government, or that he was right and was stating the policy of the Government. It makes all the difference in the world whether this is a "temporary lifebuoy" or a permanent battleship in which the farmer is for ever to travel in safety. We want to know, and the country wants to know, which of these two things it is. I ask the Minister to be quite frank with the Committee and with the country, and to let us know what his views are. It is no good his saying that there is a committee which can decide, after three years, whether the scheme is to go on or not. The only function of that committee is to decide whether the price is to continue; it has not to decide whether the Act is to continue in force. As to that it has no power and no function. Such a good constitutionalist as the Minister of Agriculture is not going to suggest that Parliament should delegate its power to a committee to decide in future whether or not the Act is to continue in force. If that were his suggestion it would be another new constitutional precedent.
The reason why it is important to have a limitation of time in the Bill is that that would automatically bring the matter before the House of Commons in five years' time. The House of Commons with all the material before them can then decide what is the best thing to do. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect the insistence of his party upon a time limitation in connection with Measures dealing with the coal industry and with
Unemployment Insurance. His is the very party which has always said, "We will not allow Parliament to commit itself indefinitely in the future. We will put in a period of time within which this Measure will have to come before Parliament again." In this case, if Parliament at the end of five years wishes to do so, if we still have these great phalanxes of the National party on the benches opposite they can re-enact the Measure or continue it, but the important thing is that Parliament should now definitely warn the farmer that the Bill will come up for reconsideration in five years' time, and that he is not to rely on anything beyond that period.
The farmer should know now that Parliament will then reconsider the whole circumstances and see what he has done and whether he can produce wheat "two thousand fold" as the hon. Member for South Edinburgh suggested. He should be told that Parliament at the end of five years would inquire into all these matters, and if Parliament thought the farmers deserved it, he would then have another Act and get a further subsidy. The Bill at present definitely states to the farmer, "Here is a permanent system. The only thing likely to be altered in it is the price, but the system of subsidising wheat is going to be a permanent feature of agricultural policy." The Minister said that he was not aware of the sort of agriculture to which there might be a change-over. Let me read the words of his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland:
The main expansion of agriculture in this country will take place along the lines, first, of live-stock farming for which our cool, moist climate producing the best grass in the world is pre-eminently suitable; and, secondly, the production of those commodities in which freshness is a primary element of value, and in which the farmer starts with a substantial advantage in the home market. I am not one of those who regard wheat as a key crop."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1932; col. 1072, Vol. 262.]
I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland is now in his place. When he made that statement we believed that he was speaking on behalf of the Government. We now know that there are many times when Cabinet Ministers do not speak on behalf of the Government. Would he or the Minister—one or other, or both together if they like—tell us
whether it is the policy of the Government to get a turnover owing to "our cool, moist climate" to meat production and to milk, vegetables, fruit, and so forth, or is it the policy of the Government to encourage and increase wheat production? Does the Secretary of State for Scotland, after all that he has heard during the Committee stage of this Bill, still believe that this is "a temporary lifebuoy" thrown to the farmer? Or does he believe, as is suggested by a number of those who sit behind them, that this is a permanent institution, the only variation allowed in the Measure being the variation in price? These are things which the country is anxious to know, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, between them, will be able to make up their minds rapidly and tell us which of these two things they really mean.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I intervene again to say a few words at this stage, because I think we are coming to an end of the discussion upon this particular aspect of the question. I endeavoured earlier to point out that the Government's policy was, quite frankly, to preserve in this country the balance of possibilities between arable cultivation and the other forms of agriculture. It is quite clear that to put a definite time limit in the Bill without knowing for certain, or indeed knowing at all what will he the situation five years hence—particularly in present circumstances when not only agriculture but all our monetary arrangements are in a very doubtful position—would be a foolish line of procedure. The Government felt that the proper way to proceed was to frame this Measure so that it would give to the farmer, who was principally concerned in arable cultivation, this "temporary lifebuoy," if you like so to describe it, but with the certainty that it would be permanent, at any rate for the next three years, and that at the end of that period the circumstances would be reviewed.
In the meantime, it is made perfectly clear to the farming community what is expected from them, and, if the Bill works as I am satisfied it will, the machinery of the Bill will, in fact, bring the farming community who are interested in arable production into better and more orderly methods of marketing. It will
encourage them to produce in the cheapest manner possible; it will be an incentive to them to grow the best classes of wheat and to bring that wheat to market in the best possible condition. All these things are provided for in the machinery of the Bill, and at the end of that period which I have mentioned the circumstances must be reviewed. Not only so, but in the period from now onward the most careful and meticulous examination of all the circumstances of production is being made under the aegis of the very well qualified people who at Cambridge are going into these problems on the spot. At the end of that time we shall have not only the report of the inquiry, but a great deal more information which will enable Parliament at that time to make up their minds whether they shall continue this for another period, or what shall be their policy.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to get it before Parliament? It is only if an alteration is to be made in price that Parliament can even look at it.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, every Parliament and every Government must judge of the circumstances. Each Government will be responsible for its proposals, and, as I say, not only the report to which I have referred but all the knowledge which the Ministry of Agriculture, and these investigations which are being conducted outside will bring to the Government, will then be available. If Parliament then thinks that a change should be made, Parliament, no doubt, will make the change. But that we should here and now prejudge the problem seems to me highly foolish. I want to see the turn-over, in districts where it is suitable, from one kind of cultivation to another. That is only common sense, but I desire to say emphatically that it is not the policy of the Government to say to the arable farmer that he does not know anything about his awn business and that he must, of necessity, change over to other classes of agriculture, in all circumstances and in every district. On the contrary, we want to see progress made in an orderly manner, and in these circumstances we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has given us an explanation of what we already know, namely, that the circumstances will be reviewed at a certain time, but he has not met the point that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of reviewing this matter at the end of the period mentioned in the Amendment. The amazing thing to me is that the Tory party has completely changed its policy on this point. When the late Labour Government were in office, and when the Measure dealing with the coal industry was before the House, they insisted that its operation should be limited to three years. When they failed to carry their point here, they used their friends in another place to accomplish what they could not accomplish in the House of Commons. Much the same kind of thing took place in reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act, though then it was a question of a limit not of five years but of three years. I should like to hear what the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Croolcshank) has to say on this point because he was one of the champions of limiting the period of those Measures, on the ground that it was desirable to make plain the real responsibility of the House of Commons on questions of this description.
Let us put the matter bluntly. The real situation is this. We were defending the interests of the mass of the people in those Measures to which I have referred. Hon. Members opposite are now, like good Tories, defending their friends. It is an old saying that when the Tories are in office they defend their friends and in this Bill they are putting an increased charge on to the great mass of the people, on to the unemployed, on to those who are suffering reductions of income in every direction, in order to put money into the pockets of their friends. I do not know why they try to conceal the truth of the matter. Apparently they think that this principle of the control of Parliament is a good thing when they are not in office and in relation to Measures concerning the industrial worker and the unemployed, but a very bad thing when applied to their own friends. There is no logic in that attitude except the logic of supporting your friends when you have the power to do so.

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is such arrant nonsense that I must say a few words in reply. I, personally, do not recollect any part which I may have played in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act upon this point, but as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) seems to recollect it, no doubt he suffered from the whips and scorpions which were flying about then. In any case, there is no relation between this Bill and the Unemployment Insurance Act, in connection with which a great amount of money had to be found either by loan, as in the time of the Labour Government, or by the taxpayer, as is the case to-day. This is a Measure in which no money question is involved as far as the taxpayer is concerned, and that is a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman's strictures.
I am glad that the Minister has not been led away by the fallacious arguments adduced by the Opposition to-day and their very transparent manoeuvres. They want a date inserted in the Bill because they hope that one of two things will happen—either that the date for bringing the Measure to an end will have to be advanced in which case they would be able to say, "Look how your friends have let you down," or else that the period will have to be prolonged, in which case they would be able to say, "Look how the National Government is wrong again. They do not know how long to keep the Measure in force." It is a, perfectly obvious game—trying to induce the Government to put a date into a Measure which deals with circumstances which are quite imponderable. The value of the Bill is that it will be continuing as long

6.30 p.m.

as circumstances require and I hope that the Minister is not going to put in anything more definite on that point. It is no use for the ex-Solicitor-General to use those very mixed military metaphors to which he has become so attached lately and to talk to us about phalanxes and about the farmer travelling in the safety of a battleship. Neither the farmer nor the ex-Solicitor-General would recognise himself in a battleship. It is no good talking like that when he knows, as well as anybody else, that world conditions and the condition of agriculture in this country over the next four or five years cannot be forecast, and when he knows also that there is nothing permanent in this world and that in a Measure of this kind it would be a very great mistake to try to fix upon any date. But when he talks about how worried he is as to whether the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to talk with the same voice on this and kindred subjects, he need not worry himself, because I observed in the "Times" to-day that a distinguished ex-Cabinet Minister of the party opposite, Mr. Herbert Morrison, went to Bolton on Saturday night and that there were so few there that the meeting was disbanded without Mr. Morrison having made a speech at all. That is a feat, so far as I am aware, that has not previously befallen any Minister of any Cabinet, whatever views he may have held.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 301.

Division No. 130.]
AYES.
[6.31 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Sir Percy
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cowan, O. M.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dickie, John P.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Allen Parkinson.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Atholl, Duchess of


Albery, Irving James
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Atkinson, Cyril


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanel)
Fox, Sir Gilford
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beaumont, Hon, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Goff, Sir Park
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Blindell, James
Goldie, Noel B.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bossom, A. C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitcheson, G. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Graves, Marjorie
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Greene, William p. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grentell, E. C. (City Of London)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moreing, Adrian C.


Bracken, Brendan
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, William Shephard


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moss, Captain H. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hales, Harold K.
Munro, Patrick


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Buchan, John
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Burghley, Lord
Hanley, Dennis A.
North, Captain Edward T.


Burnett, John George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nunn, William


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hartland, George A.
O'Connor, Terence James


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Patrick, Colin M.


Caing, G. R. Hall-
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pearson, William G.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peat, Charles U.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)
Penny, Sir George


Carver, Major William H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Petherick, M.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hepworth, Joseph
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pike, Cecil F.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Potter, John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hornby, Frank
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Caz let, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horobin, Ian M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Percy John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rea, Walter Russell


Clayton, Dr- George C.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Held, James S. C. (Stirling)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Remer, John R.


Colville, John
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Conant, R. J. E.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cook, Thomas A.
Ker, J. Campbell
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Robinson, John Roland


Cooper, A. Duff
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Copeland, Ida
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M H. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Knebworth, Viscount
Rosbotham, S. T.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rothschild, James A. de


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Law, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cross, R. H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crossley, A, C.
Leckie, J. A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Liddall, Walter S.
Salmon. Major Isidore


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Drewe, Cedric
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Scone, Lord


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loder, Captain J. de Vs.-e
Selley, Harry R.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Eales, John Frederick
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Eastwood, John Francis
Mabane, William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Eden, Robert Anthony
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McKie, John Hamilton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Major Alan
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.




Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Strauss, Edward A.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wise, Alfred R.


Sutcliffe, Harold
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Womersley, Walter James


Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Templeton, William P.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wragg, Herbert


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.



Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wells, Sydney Richard
Mr. Shakespeare and Captain


Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Weymouth, viscount
Austin Hudson.


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The DEPUTYCHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): As regards the new Clauses on the Paper, the only one that is either not covered already Or not outside the scope of the Bill is that in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and other hon. Members—(Records of wheat acreage.)

Sir S. CRIPPS: On a point of Order. There is a new Clause (Flour and Bread Prices Committee) on the Paper, and may I respectfully suggest that it cornea within the Title of the Bill, being a purpose "connected with the matters aforesaid"; that is to say, it is designed in order to see that the price of flour is not raised above the amount which is to be added under the Bill. This is to safeguard the position of bakers and consumers of bread in a matter in which the Bill is putting a charge on the flour; it is consequential upon that charge being put on and is merely designed to provide a safeguard as to how that charge shall be passed on.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member was not aware that I gave a ruling on a previous Amendment, when I said that I had concluded that it introduced a new principle, which, although it might be cognate to the subject matter of the Bill, was not in the mind of the House when it passed the Second Reading, and I could only accept it on the direct instruction of the House to that effect.

Mr. WILLIAM ALLEN: On a point of Order. May I refer to the New Clause on the Paper (Rent not to be raised when, deficiency payment made) and call your attention to the purpose of the Bill? That purpose is:
to secure to growers of home-grown mill-able wheat a standard price and a market therefor; to make provision for imposing
on millers and importers of flour obligations to make payments …ֵ and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
In order to secure a standard price to the grower it is within the ambit of the Bill, I submit, to say that a certain past of that standard price shall not be taken away in rent, and therefore that such an Amendment is in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Again I must rule that, although possibly cognate to the subject matter of the Bill, it yet introduces a new principle, and I could only accept it on the direct instruction of the House.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Records of wheat acreage.)

Every registered grower shall keep a record, in a form to be prescribed by the Minister, of the acreage of wheat sown by such grower each year, of the variety of the wheat so sown, of the method of cultivation (including harvesting) employed by him in growing of such wheat, and of the quantity (in hundredweights) of such wheat actually threshed, and shall, when required by the Wheat Commission, furnish a return to the Wheat Commission giving the information contained in the said record in respect of the wheat then under cultivation by him or, if so required by the Wheat Commission, of the wheat grown by him in the previous cereal year.

Provided that if any registered grower fails to keep such a record or fails, when required, to make such a return, he shall cease to be entitled to any deficiency payment in respect of any wheat grown by him during the cereal year in which such default is made.—[Sir P. Harris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture who has guided the Bill so far with such skill and ability is not here at the moment, but he has such able assistants that no doubt they will be able to accept this proposed Clause. Anybody
who has followed the long discussions on this very complex Bill will realise that it will not be easy to make it operate; it has been necessary to set up very cumbersome machinery in order to make it work. The Committee must realise that after three years the whole position will be surveyed. It will then be necessary to judge whether the Bill has worked fairly and justly, and whether it has helped agriculture on the one hand and added to the cost of living on the other. It is clear that unless the farmers are required to keep statistics, to collect facts, and to schedule their information, the committee which will inquire into the working of the Act will largely work in the dark. This is a country, compared with other countries, of small farmers, and it is notorious that the one thing that British farmers do not like is to keep necessary statistics. My friends and I are influenced in moving this new Clause by a wider reason. I was impressed by a speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He raised the case for the Bill to a higher plane: this was not a Bill to give a subsidy, but a constructive attempt to help agriculture get on to its legs. Let me quote from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Second Reading of this Bill a passage which is appropriate to the proposed Clause:
I do not think that cereal farming can be or ought to be maintained at its present level of importance in our agricultural system as long as the old methods of production, and of marketing are employed. I have never disguised my belief when speaking in this House on the problems of agriculture that when the present world depression has passed, and world prices for primary productions have begun to rise, the main expansion of agriculture in this country will take place along the lines, first, of live-stock farming for which our cool, moist climate producing the best grass in the world is pre-eminently suitable; and, secondly, the production of those commodities in which freshness is a primary element of value, and in which the farmer starts with a substantial advantage in the home market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1932; col. 1072; Vol. 262.]
That embraces what I want to get into this Bill. I do not want to stereotype agriculture on its old lines; I want to secure that there is a record of the methods of cultivation. In the Report of the Imperial Economic Committee on the Wheat Situation, 1931, which was
circulated just before the Bill was presented, there is a passage dealing with improvements in cultivation. It says:
The improvements in machinery have resulted in a great saving of labour. When wheat was harvested with a sickle and threshed with a flail, from 35 to 50 hours of labour were necessary for harvesting and threshing an acre of wheat with a yield of 15 bushels. … At present, farmers in the Great Plains usually use from four to five hours of labour for harvesting and threshing an acre of wheat when it is harvested with a binder and threshed from the stook with a stationary thresher; from three to four hours of labour when the crop is harvested with a header and threshed with a stationary thresher; and an average of three-fourths of an hour of labour when the combined harvester-thresher is used.
Does this Bill mean a new era for agriculture? Does it mean that for the first time, with security to the farmer for good prices for his wheat, we are to have the introduction of the combined harvest-thresher and the latest methods in agriculture? [Interruption.] I understand from same remarks behind me that we are not. I say that we are, and that is why I move this new Clause. We are living in the 20th century, and we have to be realists. We cannot go on ignoring world causes—[Interruption.] The only case far Protection that has ever been made from the Front Bench is that along with Protection we shall get the proper methods and mass production which security will provide. T do not suggest mass production, for that is not possible in agriculture, but I say that the mechanisation of farming must come with the security which the Bill is supposed to give.
It is suggested that our system of farm tenure and of small farms will not lend itself to mechanisation. If that be true, the case for the Bill goes to the wall. If we are to stimulate the production of wheat, we can only be justified in doing it by bringing our methods of production, sowing, ploughing and harvesting up to the very latest ideals and the Standards even of the Dominions. It may even mean filling up ditches and cutting down hedges. I am sorry that the Noble Lady, who so eloquently spoke on this Bill, is not present. It may be arguable that it is wiser to encourage farmers to produce milk, eggs, vegetables and poultry on small family farms, but if we wish to have wheat, we must know that our methods of production will he modernised
and brought into line with the methods in other parts of the world, and that may mean cutting down hedges and filling up ditches. These facts and figures should be secured so that after three years' experience of security for the farmers, the House and the country would know what the Act has done. The Minister has been rather adamant up to the present and not very ready to make concessions. Most of his concessions have been promises of reconsideration before the Report stage. Hardly a word of the Bill has been altered.
The right hon. Gentleman is a regular stone-waller, but he is a great agriculturist From all I hear, he has been a successful farmer, and that largely explains his occupation on this particular job. Let him show that he has a message to the farming community and to the nation. This is supposed to be a temporary Measure, and, to use the phrase of the Secretary of State for Scotland, a lifebuoy thrown out to farmers to help them over a stormy sea. [Laughter.] It may be a mixed metaphor, but it is not mine. If the Minister is really taking a long view of the real interests of agriculture—and after all, it affects more than agriculture; it affects the real interests of the nation—he will make it clear that this Bill aims at tiding over difficult limes and a period of transition, and that only those farmers will be encouraged to continue in the production of wheat who are prepared to bring their methods of cultivation into line with the practice in other parts of the world where wheat-growing is carried on on profitable lines at a low price.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The hon. Baronet declared that the Bill was not easy to work and that the object of his proposed Clause was to make it more easy. It is difficult to see how it would achieve that result, because it would impose upon the farmer the duty of attempting to keep a series of elaborate records, the value of which would be entirely lost if in any considerable proportion of them there was any misunderstanding of what each particular point meant, or any inaccuracy in the result. I cannot think that the hon. Baronet can expect my right hon. Friend to accept this proposal, for indeed it would add to the lifebuoy a very considerable
burden of lead. All are agreed that it will be of immense importance and interest to see the effect of this Bill on the cultivation of wheat, but that can be done and be accurately assessed, not by a proposed Clause such as this, which only suggests that a certain number of facts should be tabulated by farmers; it can only be done by a proper and full farm survey.
If you are to have really reliable information as to the effect of the new system, over and above such items as those mentioned in the proposed Clause, any really proper and valuable scientific survey of the result of wheat cultivation in this country would have to include facts with reference to mechanical equipment, the quantities of manure, artificial and farmyard, used, whether crops were top-dressed with nitrogenous fertilisers and such things, the number and size of fields under wheat, the total area in each farm, the rotation of crops, the yield of wheat per acre, the rate of application of seeds, whether home-grown or purchased seeds are used and varieties grown. I very much doubt whether this would even exhaust the items of information which would be necessary for an accurate survey. In any case, that kind of work is the work of the scientific examiner and investigator, and not the work of a practical, administrative body.
7.0 p.m.
I venture to say again what has often been said before on this branch of the topic, that nothing could be more foolish than than to burden the administrative Commission, which has got quite enough work to do, with the task of collecting and analysing the scientific and agricultural facts connected with the growing of wheat under the new system.
There is this further point. Mere paper returns are not the best basis for scientific farming. The whole Committee knows by this time that there is at present operating in the Eastern counties a very elaborate farming survey, which is to be continued and which is not based on returns handed in by farmers, who may be very doubtful as to the exact meaning of several points in the questionnaire. Personally, I never had to answer a, questionnaire which was not open to several interpretations, and I do not think one can frame a questionnaire which is not. This farm survey is based
not on returns but upon personal investigation and personal visits of skilled and scientific men. That kind of survey is worth the money spent on it, but it cannot be done by the Wheat Commission. That kind of survey cannot have a substitute in returns containing the very partial information which the hon. Baronet thinks will do very well for the scientists in Bethnal Green.
He need not be grieved because his Clause cannot be accepted. It is certain that, when this new system comes into operation, there will be an immense amount of scientific agricultural thought and skill turned with the greatest interest and anxiety to see what its results will be. This country has now followed in the wake of many other countries in making this great experiment of assisting wheat-growing by means of a quota and not by a tariff. This country, whatever its agricultural defects may be, is certainly among the very first in its scientific experts and in the interest it takes in the results of agriculture. To suppose that our whole body of agricultural scientists is going to sit down and take no notice of this particular experiment is to suppose something that will not happen. I have no doubt that the survey to which I have referred will direct its attention to wheat-growing when this Bill becomes an Act; I have no doubt that the information it will receive will be of great value; I have no doubt that the information properly collected, tabulated and analysed will be at the disposal of the Wheat Commission; I have no doubt that information collected in that way will be of great value to them. I am certain that to burden the farmer with a scientific questionnaire, which must be accurately filled in or else it will not be worth the paper on which it is written, and then to ask the Wheat Commission to add to its labours the work of collecting and analysing these figures would not be to help the working of the Bill, but would go far to making the Bill a complete farce.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot follow his point about the scientific survey. It may be that the scientific survey, which is at present being undertaken, will be invaluable and may well be the only kind
of survey that will be of ultimate value to agriculture, but how is that survey related to the new Clause? This new Clause deals exclusively with wheat and, as this Bill deals exclusively with wheat, the scientific survey referred to is a side issue at the moment, because the scientific survey which is being conducted is intended to deal with the whole of our agricultural situation. This Bill, on the other hand, deals exclusively with the production of wheat and by no means covers the comprehensive ground referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The new Clause asks that a record be kept by the farmer of the acreage of wheat sown. That is not difficult. It asks that the farmer should indicate on the form the variety of wheat sown. That, too, is not very difficult. It asks him to indicate the method of cultivation, whether horse power or mechanical power, and there is also a reference to harvesting, as to whether it is the old-fashioned harvester or whether it is the combine. That, too, is not very difficult. It also asks the farmer to state the amount of wheat threshed. There are four different items in the new Clause and the hon. Baronet is not asking too much.
The point of this new Clause is that we are entitled to know season by season what acreage is under wheat. We are entitled to have the records, or else how are we to know, when the new Committee comes into existence, to what extent we are going to exceed the 25,000,000 cwts? Unless these records are available in a very clear form, how are we to know that land unsuitable for wheat growing is not going to be used for wheat growing? A record of the four items mentioned in the Clause would not be a burden on the farmer, and would not require him to employ a special clerk or secretary to tell the Wheat Commission how many acres he has sown, what variety he has sown, whether he employs a combine harvester or the old-fashioned machine, and how much wheat he has threshed. There are simply four items to be dealt with and, in view of the fact that the country and the Government are guaranteeing a certain price, we ought to have that information.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision, because the Clause strikes me as a
most useful Clause. The gibe of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Skelton) that this was more suitable for Bethnal Green and not for agriculture indicates that he had not read the Clause, which states that the grower shall keep the records in a form described by the Minister. That puts the responsibility upon the Minister of drawing up a form of record which will be suitable for agriculture. Therefore his references to Bethnal Green are beside the mark, and have no reference to this particular Clause. If we can get a form drawn up, the statistics will be most valuable and will be a great addition to the ammunition of the Minister himself and for the committee in three years time when they come to decide what is to be done. In every way it seems to me most valuable for future reference and for future guidance as to whether this Bill should be permanent or temporary.
When the Minister reads this Clause, which is intended to help him and to facilitate his work in every way, he will, I am sure, reconsider the Clause, which is supported by all men of impartial mind. It is not a party Clause in any sense of the word, but a Clause which my colleague for Edinburgh would, I am sure, support. As he is so anxious to help agriculture, here is an opportunity for him to do so. He is confident that the more information we get about wheat-growing the more encouraged wheat-growers would become. If that is the case, he and others should welcome this Clause as providing information to guide future Governments. The Clause must be in accordance with the ideas set forth by the Minister for Agriculture, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision and be prepared either now or on the Report stage to consider some method by which we will have a permanent record of wheat-growing, which will guide us in the future, and be of value to the Minister.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: My hon. Friend, who is my next-door neighbour in the representation of Edinburgh, hopes that I will support the new Clause. I rise to tell the Committee and him in particular that I am not going to do any such thing. The policy of those Members of this Committee who oppose this Bill seems to be guided by two great objects. The first is to deny the farmer a fair chance of a living and of pursuing agriculture at a
reasonable price and then, when we prevent them from having their way, the next thing is that the same individuals propose Amendments which want to worry the farmers after they have done a hard day's work. I am a delinquent myself and hate filling up forms of all kinds. If anybody has worked on the land and worked among farmers, they know that there is nothing more distasteful to them than to think that in the next week or fortnight they will have to fill up a long series of inquiries to satisfy inquisitive gentlemen like the hon. Member. Hon. Gentlemen who want such information had better go among the farmers, as some of us have done, and find out at first hand about agriculture. Anyone who wants to know about farming should not merely address his constituents in East Edinburgh but should go down to the Lothians, and live there, or come to the county of Perth and live with me for a bit, as the hon. Member can do, if he likes. I will take him round and we will get first-hand information. Forms! What are forms? They are only misleading. Forms are nothing in themselves. We want first-hand information, and the farmer will tell the hon. Member more in 20 minutes, and put more good sense in him in 10 minutes, than can be learned from a million forms. We ought not to worry the farmers, but let them get on with their job, and then we shall have fewer Members such as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh returned to Parliament.

Mr. LANSBURY: This is all very fine! Nobody would want to worry the farmer if he had not worried us, but here we have been spending a week or two considering the state of the farmers simply because they cannot get on without the House of Commons. They want some money—a lot of money—£26,000,000, and when we say, "Tell us how you are getting on, and what you are doing with the money," the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) gives us the sort of homily to which we have just listened. Are we not entitled to know what we get for our money? We do not let workmen off in that way. [Interruption.] Certainly. Parliament would never dream of giving £6,000,000 to subsidise the wages of workpeople without wanting to know all about it, and wanting millions and millions of forms filled up. Even to
get unemployment benefit the working people have to fill up foams. A man has to tell all about his ancestors, what they have done and left undone, and what they ought to have done; how many children he has got and why he has had them—and a whole lot more information. Here we are asking only a few perfectly simple questions.
I do not believe the Committee and the Minister really understand the Amendment. It is such a simple one. All it asks is that every registered grower shall keep a record, in a form to be prescribed by the Minister. No one would accuse the present Minister of Agriculture of sending out forms which the farmer did not understand—even though he may give him a Bill which nobody understands. Not one of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench can give a really good and conclusive exposition of this Bill and say what it will be when it becomes an Act But we will trust the Ministry of Agriculture to send out a form! All we ask the farmer to tell us is the acreage of wheat which he sows and the variety. [Interruption.] It might be difficult if we asked him to tell us whether it was millable or not, because nobody has defined "millable wheat." But we would leave it to the Minister to get over that difficulty. Further, we ask that the farmer should inform us of the method of cultivation he follows, and so on. For the life of me I cannot see why that should not be done.
There is one perfectly sound reason for getting this information. I have heard experts on both sides—my hon. and learned Friend on one side and hon. Gentlemen on the other side—arguing over what land is suitable for wheat growing, and whether it is economically desirable to grow it in certain places and under certain conditions. Surely when we are spending £6,000,000 we ought to have a record of the places where the farmers are trying to get this money and the conditions under which they are trying to get it. Instead of pitying the poor farmer I congratulate him—on getting away with the swag—and feel that we are requiring a very small thing in asking that he should fill up a form in order that the country may know whether he is
cultivating land which is economically suited for wheat growing, what he produces and whether our money is assisting efficient methods of cultivation. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh appears to think that all that is necessary is to say to the farmer, "Here is this £6,000,000; do the best you can with it; we will trust you." [Interruption.] Yes, but the real reason I am against it is that we never dream of doing this in the case of the working people. We should not dream of saying to the working man, "We will pay you extra money and not trouble whether you deserve it or not." We want to make certain that the money will be spent in a proper manner and that we get results from it.
I am not one of those who believe that cheapness is the ideal. I think there are circumstances under which the State ought to give a subsidy to industries of various kinds; but whenever a subsidy is given we ought to know all about the spending of it, in order to ascertain whether we are getting adequate results. I cannot understand why the Minister should object to so simple a Clause, which would enable him to have information at his disposal as to the success or otherwise of his Bill.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: I trust the Minister will not accept this proposed new Clause. If practical farmers could listen on the wireless to the discussion which is now going on in this House they would smile. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said the farmers ought to get their coats off. I can tell him that the farmers never have their coats on, having to work so hard in order to get a living in the present condition of the industry.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the hon. Member could not have heard what I said. I never mentioned farmers' coats.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: Get their jackets off.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Some of them.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: They have got their jackets off. I am surprised that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, who are possessed of common sense and practical knowledge, should support a Clause which is unworkable. Farmers do not like having to
fill up forms. They like to get their jackets off and get their job done. The object of this Bill is to increase the acreage of land under wheat in this country and to provide more work in the rural districts, and I trust the Minister will turn a deaf ear to this Clause.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The attention of the Committee ought to be drawn to the amazing thirst for knowledge which has been evinced by one or two of the speakers. When we see the purest of Socialists combining in his desire for knowledge with the purest of pure Liberals—as we are told the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is—we may be quite sure they are after something. I have listened to a great number of Socialists and Liberal speeches in my time—it is one of the things I rejoice in—and when they are concerned with agriculture the one idea seems to be that farming can be, made to pay if only there is a sufficiency of statistics. If only there are enough statistics everything will be all right! Even the Secretary of State for Scotland believed that, in his unregenerate days. I have heard him make a bril-

liant speech in favour of statistics. Now, of course, he has improved; I do not think he would say the same thing at the present time. The real reason why such whole-hearted support has been given to this Clause is to be found in the proviso. If the farmer makes the slightest slip in sending in his record, or is a day late with it, he cannot get the quota payments. That is the real reason why this Clause is put forward. [Interruption.]

Mr. LANSBURY: I laughed, that is all!

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman laughs because he has been caught out. Now that their design has been given away, I feel sure the Committee will vote against this Clause, and I hope that young and immature Liberals will not be led away by this new alliance of the purest of Liberals with the purest of Socialists, who will always do the Liberals in sooner or later.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 42;. Noes, 274.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[7.26 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normenton)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan).


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Pickering, Ernest H,


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Granfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. D. Mason and Mr. Dingle Foot


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Blindell, James
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Borodale, Viscount
Carver, Major William H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Bossom, A. C
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Boyce, H. Leslie
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. SirJ. A. (Birm., W)


Astbury, Lieut. -Com. Frederick Wolfe
Bracken, Brendan
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaitoh)


Atholl, Duchess of
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Broadbent, Colonel John
Chotzner, Alfred James


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buchan, John
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Colville, John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burghley, Lord
Conant, R. J. E.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Burnett, John George
Cook, Thomas A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Cooper, A. Duff


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B, (Portsm'th, C.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Copeland, Ida


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Crooke, J. Smedley


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kerr, Hamilton w.
Raid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kimball, Lawrence
Renter, John R.


Cross, R. H.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Crossley, A. C.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard.
Knebworth, Viscount
Robinson, John Roland


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, S. T.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Law, Richard. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ross, Ronald D.


Dickie, John P.
Leckie, J. A.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Conner, P. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Drewe, Cedric
Levy, Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Duckworth, George A. V.
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Eales, John Frederick
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Eastwood, John Francis
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Eden, Robert Anthony
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Savery, Samuel Servington


Elmley, Viscount
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Scone, Lord


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Major Alan
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Lt. -Col. Sir M.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Martin, Thomas B.
Scmerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fuller, Captain A. O.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, Charles
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Stones, James


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Strauss, Edward A.


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Goldie, Noel B.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Templeton, William P.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morgan, Robert H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Greene, William P. C.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Morrison, William Shephard
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro W.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Munro, Patrick
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hales, Harold K.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Nunn, William
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hanley, Dennis A.
O'Connor, Terence James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hartland, George A.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gfn)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pearson, William G.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peat, Charles U.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir George
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)
Petherick, M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hepworth, Joseph
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pike, Cecil F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Potter, John
Wise, Alfred R.


Hornby, Frank
Powell, Lieut. -Col. Evelyn G. H.
Womereley, Walter James


Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Pybus, Percy John
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred b.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)



Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rea, Walter Russell
Sir George Bowyer.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

FIRST SOHEDULE.—(Constitution and Proceedings of Wheat Commission.)

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I beg to move, in page 26, line 7, to leave out the word "a" and to insert instead thereof "an independent."
If my Amendment is adopted, paragraph 1 will then read,
and shall consist of an independent, chairman.
When I first- read this Schedule, I thought there must be a printer's error
in this paragraph, and I am moving this Amendment in order to see whether that is the case or not. I do not know of any commission where an independent chairman has not been appointed. The wages board has an independent chairman. Of course, I am aware that much depends on what you call an independent man, but there has been no difficulty in finding independent chairmen for various public boards, and I am sure that we shall be able to find an independent chairman in this case.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that the request which the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has made in moving this Amendment is one which the Minister must necessarily have in mind in making the appointment. The great difficulty is to find out what is actually meant by independent. The Wheat Commission will be a body composed of a great variety of interests and representatives of different methods of production. It is really almost impossible to define what you actually mean by an independent person. Clearly, what we shall aim at in appointing the chairman of such a body is to get somebody who is known to the general public, is respected as being level-headed and independent in mind, and who will preside with a knowledge of affairs over such a body. We may wish to appoint a public man who may have been interested in other businesses than those with which the Commission have to deal, and he might or might not have farmed land in the past. It is very difficult to find a word which will satisfactorily achieve what we all wish. It is our intention to invite someone to preside over the Wheat Commission who shall not be directly or actually connected with the agricultural industry, but our choice would be limited by the words which have been proposed in the Amendment, and I am afraid that I cannot accept this proposal.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Minister of Agriculture is particularly hard to please. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is unable to find a form of words which will make it certain that a person will be appointed as chairman who is, broadly speaking, an independent person. The right hon. Gentleman has already given us a number of definitions of what he means by independent. He has told us that the chairman should be someone
known to the public, respected, and independent in mind. Why not put those words in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it might suit him to appoint someone not directly connected with the agricultural industry. If that is so, why not put it in the Bill. Whenever we make a suggestion, we are told that we must rely upon the right hon. Gentleman to choose the best methods. This is only another instance of an attempt to fob off a most desirable Amendment, and one which would command the confidence of the public. The public would realise and feel that the chairman was an independent person, and I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is shying at in refusing to put in this very obvious word. We shall certainly support the Amendment in the Lobby.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If the chairman is going to be independent, why not say so in the Bill. [Interruption.] All that noise does not impress me at all. Paragraph 2 stipulates who the members of the Commission shall be other than the chairman and vice-chairman, and it provides for the representation of growers, millers, importers of flour, dealers, and the consumers of flour. Therefore, the chairman must be more or less independent, and could not be connected with the growing, milling or importation of wheat. I think we might include the word "independent," which means something to the outside public, and, if paragraph 2 has any meaning at all, it probably covers what the Minister has in mind. If the Minister does not accept this Amendment now, f hope he will reconsider the matter on the Report stage.

Mr. ATTLEE: We have any number of Acts of Parliament dealing with industrial disputes in which it is provided that there shall be an independent chairman. Perhaps the term "independent" goes too far, because, whoever the chairman might be, he must be allowed to consume a certain amount of flour, unless he were a Scotsman who lived on oatmeal.

Mr. LANSBURY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest some other words? This is a very important matter. Here are two of the most loyal supporters of the right hon. Gentleman asking him to do an ordinary, common-place, common sense thing, that is to say, to put in a
word to define what he really means. He wants this man to be independent—or it might be a woman for all that I know. He wants an independent person as chairman. What is his reason for not putting that word in? He has given us none. He has said a lot of words, but at the end of them I could not understand what it was that he was driving at. Every other body of this kind has an independent chairman. I have sometimes grumbled about these independent chairmen, because they do not have a workman as an independent chairman when it is a question of settling wages. Why, then, should one of these people be allowed to come in in this case?
If the Schedule goes through as it stands, there will be four growers of home-grown millable wheat. As we do not know what millable wheat is, I do not know how they are going to be appointed. There are to be three members repesenting the interests of millers of flour. I call special attention to the words "representing the interests." They are going to look after their own interests in this business. Then the interests of importers of flour are to be represented. Parliament is doing a fine thing in setting up a commission to look after private interests, the interests of a set of monopolists in the country, and is going to spend £6,000,000 in doing it Surely, the Minister is not going to be so hard-faced as to say that he will not meet this proposal of his hon. Friends behind him, even if he will not listen to my hon. and learned Friend, who has helped to

make this Bill a little more workable than it otherwise would be.

This is a matter of principle, and I am sorry that there are not more industrialists here to-night. I think that, in discussing a Bill of this kind, and especially on an Amendment like this, we ought to have had the assistance of people who have had experience of bodies of this sort—statutory bodies which have to determine wages, or which have to determine conditions as to traffic and so on in the country—in showing the necessity of insisting, not on some vague promise of the Minister, but on declaring in actual words that the chairman should be independent. I should like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will agree that throughout the discussions on this Bill my hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues have helped to make the Bill a little better than it otherwise would have been; why should he be so adamant on this matter? Why not put it in the Bill and have done with it, rather than be such a stickler about something with which he agrees? I hope that the Mover of the Amendment and the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will both go into the Lobby with us if the Minister does not give way, and will stand for this principle which they think so vital, and which we agree with them in thinking so vital.

Question put, "That the word 'a' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 48.

Division No. 132.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, w.)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cross, R. H.


Albery, Irving James
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crossley, A. C.


Allen, Lt. -Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dickie, John p.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burghley, Lord
Donner, P. W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Burnett, John George
Drewe, Cedric


Atholl, Duchess of
Butt, Sir Alfred
Duckworth, George A. V.


Atkinson, Cyril
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eales, John Frederick


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Eastwood, John Francis


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Eden, Robert Anthony


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Elmley, Viscount


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Clarry, Reginald George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Clayton, Dr- George C.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton w.)
Colville, John
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Blindell, James
Conant, R. J. E.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Borodale, Viscount
Cook, Thomas A.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bossom, A. C.
Cooper, A. Duff
Everard, W. Lindsay


Boulton, W. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Fox, Sir Gifford


Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Ganzoni, Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton
Ross, Ronald D.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major Alan
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H, (Tradeeton)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Runge, Norah Cecil


Goff, Sir Park
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Goldie, Noel B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt. -Col. Sir M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Margesaon, Capt. Henry David R.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Greene, William P. C.
Martin, Thomas B.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Scone, Lord


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro W.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J, D. (New Forest)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Milne, Charles
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hales, Harold K.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hartland, George A.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morgan, Robert H.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Stones, James


Henderson, sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morrison, William Shephard
Strauss, Edward A.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hoare, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Munro, Patrick
Templeton, William P.


Hornby, Frank
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nunn, William
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pearson, William G.
Ward, Lt. -Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kimball, Lawrence
Peat, Charles U.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Knebworth, Viscount
Pike, Cecil F.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Law, Sir Alfred
Potter, John
Weymouth, Viscount


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Powell, Lieut. -Col. Evelyn G. H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Leckie, J. A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pybus, Percy John
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Levy, Thomas
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wise, Alfred R.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Womersley, Walter James


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Rea, Walter Russell
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Held, James S. C. (Stirling)



Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lovat Fraser, James Alexander
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sir Victor Warrender and Com


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Robinson, John Roland
mander Southby.


Mabane, William
Ropner, Colonel L.



NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Pickering, Ernest H.


Brown, Brig. -Gon. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Crookshank. Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Wragg, Herbert


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THB NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Sir Joseph Lamb and Mr. Cordon




Macdonald.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, he the first Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to move, I page 26, line 8, to leave out the words "a vice-chairman."
I think a vice-chaiman will be unnecessary in this case, and I rather
imagine that no vice-chairman has been appointed for any of the other Commissions. If there were, as I had hoped, an independent chairman, it would be his duty to be present when all major busi-
ness was being done, and, if it should be necessary at any time that a vice-chairman should take the chair, it would be competent for the Commission themselves to appoint someone temporarily to occupy that position. As I understand that the chairman and vice-chairman may, and probably will, be paid, it seems to be an unnecessary expense to appoint a vice-chairman.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that, if my hon. Friend considers the kind of position that the vice-chairman will have to occupy, he will realise that it is necessary, in the case of a body of such importance as this, to have a "second string." For instance, the chairman may be ill at some time or other. It is our intention to select for this post some person of outstanding public importance who will in fact be independent, although I do not know how it would be possible to define that. [Interruption.] It is a matter of degree. Both of these gentlemen will be selected with the sole view of making the machinery work as practically and easily as possible. It is essential that there should be 8.0 p.m. a relief for the chairman. This body will work partly in sub-committees at times, and it may be essential for them sometimes to move to some other part of the country in order to hear evidence; and, if that were to happen, it is likely that the vice-chairman would be used for that purpose. I think the idea that there is going to be a great deal of cost in it will not be realised.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We were very willing to support the last Amendment, which we thought would improve the Bill, but, when it comes to a wrecking Amendment of this sort, we think it would hardly be fair to the hon. Gentleman or to the Minister, and I am afraid we cannot support it.

Sir J. LAMB: In view of the view taken on the opposite side, may I have permission to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 26, line 8, to leave out the word "twelve," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."
The original numbers in the Bill are a chairman, a vice-chairman and 12 other
persons. The reason it was kept at that number was that we were very anxious not to make this body too large. On the other hand, we have had a considerable number of representations from various quarters asking that their interests should be considered, and on further consideration we have come to the conclusion that we should make this addition, making a commission of 17 all told. There will be the representatives of the farmers, the millers and the importers of flour—and I propose to add a representative of the baking interest—and we increase the number of the consumers, by a subsequent Amendment, from two to four. I hope this will meet certainly the greater part of the representations that have been made to me and to the Ministry since the Bill was published. I think we still keep a reasonable balance and do not make the body unwieldy.

Sir J. LAMB: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this will affect the two Amendments down later, one in my name, to leave out "twelve," and insert "sixteen," and one in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), in line 13, to leave out "four" and insert "eight"?

The CHAIRMAN: The Question I have to put is, "That the word 'twelve'stand part." If that word is left out, it will then be open to the Committee to decide what shall be put in its place. In other words, I think the proper procedure is to discuss the other alternative numbers on this Amendment, and then, if the Committee desire, they can divide on the other Amendments without discussion. If the first Amendment that is put, to insert one figure in place of twelve, is carried, that is the end of it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If we all agree that the word "twelve" shall not stand part, I presume the discussion can be initiated on the Question that the word "fifteen" be inserted?

The CHAIRMAN: In that case—it has sometimes been done—if it is for the convenience of the Committee I will take the sense of the Committee immediately on the Question, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Schedule."

Question, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' be there inserted."

Sir S. CRIPPS: We have a, number of Amendments to substitute for "twelve," among others the word "twenty." It was not because we had a desire unduly to enlarge the numbers, but we wanted to make room for an adequate representation of consumers without reducing to too small a number all the other parties. We felt that, for instance, if you want representation of importers of flour, one is rather a small number. We were working on the number "twenty" as enlarging generally the representation of all classes. We are prepared to accept fifteen provided the number is so split up among the various parties as to give the consumers at least half of the representation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member snorts with indignation at the idea.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I laughed at the foolish idea. That is all.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I appreciate that to the hon. and gallant Gentleman everything is foolish that is not farming, but I would remind him that the consumer is the gentleman who is going to pay the £6,000,000. Surely he is entitled to at least half the representation on the Wheat Commission, which is to play such a big part both in advising the Minister, in making by-laws and regulations and so on. The Wheat Commission, as I understand it, has two main functions. The first is that of advising the Minister on all the operations under the Bill as regards the general policy, as regards the fixation of prices and quantities and so on, and the second, that of laying down a code by which all the dealings in wheat will be regulated after the passing of the Bill. It is obvious that on such a body you have to have representatives of the various interests with which the Wheat Commission will be dealing. You have to have the farmers, the millers, and the importers represented, but the important question of policy which will have to be decided first is where the majority is to lie. Assume for a, moment that there comes a split on some major question of policy. Do you want the majority inevitably to lie against the consumer or do you not? That seems to us to be an important matter to decide before you come down to deciding details of how the different interests are to be represented.
You have what we hope is going to be an independent chairman, and you have your vice-chairman, who, we hope, will also be independent. Therefore, you have your two independent persons, who will act as arbiters, I suppose, in case of any dispute between the two sides. On the Commission itself, unless you give the consumers, including the bakers, half the representation, you will inevitably get the dice loaded against them on every occasion, because the farmer will naturally be out to get the most that he can. He will be out to make the regulations as favourable as possible for himself. The farmers are not impartial persons who happen to be farmers. They are there and it is their job to represent the interests of the growers of home-grown millable wheat. Similarly, the persons who go there as millers are there to represent the interests of the millers. They are not there to make an impartial tribunal, happening to be millers. They may not be millers at all, but their job, as stated in the Schedule, is to represent certain interests, and, inevitably, if they do their job as pointed out in the Schedule, they will have to represent those interests.
Those who represent the interests of the millers, the importers of flour, and the dealers in home-grown millable wheat will all be more likely to favour the farmers' interest than that of the consumers. They will not be concerned in protecting the consumers' interests, and they will inevitably come together to make the best out of the Bill for their specific interests. If the consumers are to be in a permanent minority, so that in no circumstances can they ever get a vote carried against the particular interests that are represented, that will be a very unfortunate state of affairs which will inevitably lead people to be suspicious and to be antagonistic to the Wheat Commission because, however anxious one is that the farmer or the miller or anyone else should get a fair deal, the division on the Commission as constituted will inevitably come between those who have financial interests in operations like farming, milling, importing, and so on, and the general consumer. Unless you can balance those two sides, with your impartial chairman and vice-chairman to act as arbitrators, you will inevitably get the balance loaded against the consumer.
It is for that reason that we are so anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should consider very carefully whether it would not be better, instead of having 15, to have an even number so that you can have half of the even number given to the special interests and half to the consuming interests. If you have 15, inevitably one side or the other must have a majority of one, and we are most anxious, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is, that the Commission should not appear to be biased, and should not be accused of being biased, in favour of the vested interests that are represented on it. If he can see his way so to arrange the representation that the consumer gets at least half the representation, we shall be quite satisfied to have a smaller number than 20–16 or 14 or whatever number he thinks right.

The CHAIRMAN: I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to help me if he will. I want to keep the discussion in order. In the discussion on this Amendment we are, of course, covering the next two, one in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), to insert "twenty," and the other in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), to insert "fourteen," and also that in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) to insert "sixteen." I suggest that it would cover also the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member at the bottom of the page—in page 26, line 14, to leave out the word "three" and to insert instead thereof the word "two"—and that of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in line 20, to leave out "two members" and to insert "one member," and that of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), in line 21 to leave out "two" and insert "six," and that in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), to leave out "two" and insert "three." I think the others ought to be taken separately, but I think I am right in saying that all these have to do with the number to be allotted to the consumer.

Sir J. LAMB: Is it to include the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley).

The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee agree, I shall have to take the discussion on all those Amendments together.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Including the one in my name also?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think so, unless the hon. and learned Member can explain that it is entirely different.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am willing that my Amendment shall also be taken now.

The CHAIRMAN: If that is the case, the discussion will also cover the Amendment immediately before in the name of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter)—in page 26, line 13, to leave out the word "four," and to insert instead thereof, the word two.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I cannot help feeling that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is unduly anxious about the consumer. The consumer has been dealt with mainly by the Bill. I am very anxious, as far as the Members of the Commission are concerned, about the farmer. The farmer is the person who is to bear the whole brunt of the cost of the Commission, and it is vital that for this purpose, as he is the sufferer and most interested in having economical and good management, he should have the largest representation. If the Minister is determined to give the consumer the larger number, I shall have to urge upon him to make the total number larger than the 15 which he is proposing. In order to make good the point which I am making, I would call the attention of the Committee to the deficiency payment. The main duty of the Wheat Commission is to provide for the deficiency payment which is the difference between the average price and the standard price. The standard price is fixed. To arrive at the average price is a more mechanical business. It has to be done by the Minister after consultation with the Wheat Commission it is true, but to define the average price of the sales which have taken place from documents put before it is a matter of accountancy. There is one deduction to be made from the deficiency payment. Clause 1 says:
subject to the deduction to be made under the provisions of this Act relating to administrative expenses.
The only deduction from the difference between the average price and the standard price is the administrative expenses. It is clearly laid down in Clause 9 that the whole of the expenses of the Wheat Commission are administrative expenses which are to be deducted from the deficiency payment which is to be made to the farmer. I believe that I am right in saying that there is one thing in respect of which there is to be no deduction as administrative expenses, namely, the cost of the Millers' Corporation round about the purchase of the 12½ per cent. of the anticipated supply if they have not bought the full quantity during the cereal year. Beyond that the whole of the expenses fall upon the deficiency payment which is the fixed price I have already mentioned, and which comes under Sub-section (3) of Clause 9, which says:
The following expenses shall be deemed to form part of the administrative expenses of the Wheat Commission:—

(a) any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in bringing this Act into operation;
(b) any expenditure which may lawfully be incurred by the Commission under this section in paying the administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation or of any other corporation;
(c) any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred by any Government Department for the purposes of this Act, and any charge for services certified by the Minister to have been rendered with the consent of the Treasury by any such Department;
(d) any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred by the committee to be appointed under Subsection (2) of Section two of this Act."
The whole of the expenses of the Wheat Commission, the Millers' Corporation, and the expenses the Minister can certify to be due to bringing the Act into operation, or anything to do with the Act, are to be deducted from the deficiency payment paid to the farmer. [Interruption.] The deficiency payment comes from the contribution levied upon the miller. I am not suggesting that the miller has not some interest, but his interest is really slight compared with that of the farmer. It is undoubtedly true that the miller or the dealer has an interest in having the working of the Wheat Commission carried out so as to give the least friction to trade or to the business in which they are concerned. I
can see that. Therefore, I am not suggesting that he should not be represented, but that the whole expenses voted for the purpose of this machinery has to come out of what Parliament votes for the deficiency payment to be handed over to the grower. The hon. and learned Gentleman was exaggerating, as far as the working of the Wheat Commission is concerned, the interests of the consumer. I would urge the further point upon him that if under the Measure the quantity of wheat grown exceeds the 27,000,000 cwts. the deficiency payment is to be so much diminished. Therefore, again it is the interest of the farmers which come in and not the interests of the consumers.
I have sat here many days and have listened to a number of speeches from the benches below in which it has been said that the consumer would have to pay, and that it would be very hard upon the poor. That is all right. It is quite true, but that has been settled by the Bill itself, and by the Second Reading of the Bill. It is not going to be improved by the working of the Wheat Commission. If the Minister intends to make the Wheat Commission really work, the person who will find the money will be the farmer. I am very grateful indeed for the Bill, because I think that it will benefit the corn-growing industry very enormously, much more than the farmers from Bethnal Green and gentlemen of that kind who address the Committee really understand or can appreciate. We are now dealing with the persons who are to control the working of the machine and to decide whether or not this money is to go in expenses. It is perfectly fair that the grower should have larger representation. He is the man who is interested in reducing the expenses and in seeing that the scheme works properly from beginning to end. If the Minister persists in giving larger representation to the consumer, I would urge-him to make the total number larger than 15 so as to give the grower eight representatives. I am not wedded to the number eight, but certainly the grower ought to have the largest representation.

Sir J. LAMB: I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty. I am not opposing the Minister's Amendment now on the ground of the increased representation, but I do want larger representation to
be given to the farmer. I am afraid that by increasing the number to 15, opportunity will not be afforded for giving to the farmer the representation that I would like him to have. On a point of Order, would it be possible for me to move my Amendment in a different form? I have an Amendment, "to leave out 'twelve' and to insert 'sixteen.'" May I substitute 19 instead of 16? If I am allowed to do that, a sufficient number will be appointed to allow of increased representation to the farmer, in addition to the increased representation which the Minister now proposes to give to the consumer.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member gets the opportunity of moving his Amendment, "to leave out 'twelve' and insert 'sixteen,'" he can move to insert 19, but I must point out to him that if the Committee pass the present Amendment, having left out twelve and inserted instead thereof fifteen, the Committee will have decided the number, and the hon. Member will not have an opportunity of moving any further Amendment to substitute any other number.

Sir J. LAMB: That confirms the doubt which I had. I shall have to oppose the enlargement of the number to 15 in those circumstances, because I want to be able, later on, to increase the number to 19. My reason for wishing to increase the number to 19 is to give increased representation to the farmers. If the number is not increased to 19, the wheat grower will only have four representatives out of 15 on the committee. Surely, four out of 15 is a very inadequate number. It cannot be said that that is a number adequate for the reasonable interests of the growers of wheat. I have referred previously to the question of finance. When we raised the question of finance earlier we were told that the expenditure would not be excessive, but I would point out that the expenditure in the Bill is not restricted. Although extravagance is not anticipated, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. The present representation of the growers—whose money it is from which the expenditure is to be deducted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly, why give them a guarantee at all if the money is not theirs? The whole of the expenses will have to come out of
money which they believe has been guaranteed to them.
Can we have an assurance that the number will be increased sufficiently to give reasonable representation to the growers on the question of finance. There is a further point, and that is the question of the millable quality of wheat. While it is a fact that those who are dealing with wheat, both the sellers and the buyers, can say immediately what is a millable sample of wheat, it is absolutely impossible for them to put that into words. I believe that the difficulty is going to be much greater than the Minister anticipates. The difficulty which I anticipate the Minister and the Wheat Commission will have with the representation of the growers on the Commission will be with regard to this particular question of the millable quality of wheat. There will be a representation of 4 out of 15 and they will have to say what is the millable quality of wheat. That is another reason why the growers should be given better representation. It is said that the consumers ought to have a majority.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Not a majority; one-half.

8.30 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: The hon. and learned Member says "one-half." The producers are not getting fair representation. They are going to be in a hopeless minority if they only have 4 members out of 15. I hope later on that they will get 8 representatives out of 19. The Minister will only be doing justice to those whom this Bill is meant to benefit by giving them reasonable representation on the Wheat Commission. I hope he will give them more adequate representation on the Report stage, if he cannot agree to do it now.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I thank the Minister for the Amendment. My name is attached to an Amendment which only asks for 14, and now the number is to be 15. I thought we had reached the heights of generosity, but this is another instance. It is a fair compromise between the different demands made in the various Amendments. There are five specific interests mentioned. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), I would say that we have not done badly seeing that the
representation of the consumers is increased from two to five. I am not certain that the interests of the dealers and the millers will be always the same. The hon. and learned Member rather assumed that that would be the case. I accept the compromise offered by the Minister and thank him for his generosity.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: We support the Amendment and fall in with the proposition that the number should be 15, on condition that one-half of the Wheat Commission should consist of representatives of the consumers. The total on the Commission will be divided into two classes, those who pay and those who receive. Those who receive will be divided into the wheat growers and the millers. The millers are going to make a good thing out of this Bill. They will benefit very much as a result of the Bill. The only person who is not to benefit in any way is the consumer of flour, and we want to protect his interests. There is the possibility of a good deal of collusion under the Bill and also a good deal of exploitation of the consumer through the operations of the Wheat Commission. Clause 6 says:
For the purposes of this Act there shall be established under the control and management of the Wheat Commission a fund called 'the Wheat Fund'"—
These people are to manage a fund. They are not simply to attend meetings and to pass pious resolutions, and then go away. They are to be almost a standing commission, with regular responsibilities and very great powers—
into which shall be paid all moneys received by the Commission and out of which shall be defrayed all expenditure incurred by the Commission.
Payments into and out of the Wheat Fund, and all other matters relating to the Fund, and moneys standing to the credit of the Fund (including temporary investments thereof) shall, subject to the provisions of any regulations made under this Act, be made and regulated in accordance with the byelaws of the Commission.
They are to supervise this fund and control the expenditure and income. They are to make arrangements for the disposal of considerable sums of money, and, as the Minister has made provision for four members to represent the growers, who are to get the benefits of the Bill and for three millers who are to work with them, it is not asking too
much that the remaining eight shall be representatives of the consumers who will be called upon to pay. In Clause 7 provision is made that on the recommendations of the Wheat Commission the Minister is to make certain payments, and in Clause 8 it is provided that the Flour Millers' Corporation shall have the power to do certain things. One of the things which they are empowered to do is that
Any profits shown by the audited accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund to have been earned in any cereal year by the sale or disposal of any such stocks as aforesaid shall be distributed to millers in the same proportion as the output of each miller for that year bears to the aggregate output of all millers for that year.
There is the possibility of profit in the operations of the Flour Millers' Corporation and the right hon. Gentleman is not so innocent as to assume that the millers on the Wheat Commission will have no connection with the millers who control the Flour Millers' Corporation. They will be their agents on the Wheat Commission. The farming interests on the Wheat Commission will strive for the highest possible standard price. All their recommendations will be in that direction, and the millers will work with the producers in getting the utmost possible measure of profit from the operations of the Corporation. But there is nobody to look after the consumer, who might just as well be left out of the Bill. As originally drafted they were given two representatives out of 12, but the right hon. Gentleman has now gone a little further and is going to give them five representatives out of 15—one-third. That is very unfair and ill-balanced. I am sure the Minister will realise that the consumer, who has to pay the whole of the expenses and who is the only person who cannot benefit by the operation of this Bill, is entitled to a larger representation and he would be well advised in the interests of the Bill to see that the people who have to pay shall have some voice in calling the tune.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I have pleasure in supporting the Minister in this Amendment. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) need not be concerned about the members of the Commission understanding what is and what is not millable wheat, for he will find that four members represented the
growers, three the millers, two the dealers, and one representative of the bakers, all of whom understand what is meant by millable wheat. I only want to express my gratitude to the Minister for moving this Amendment because it meets an Amendment I have put down on behalf of the bakers, who asked me to move it. I should also like to thank the Members of the Committee for the kind way in which they have listened to me throughout these Debates.

Mr. HASLAM: Those who are asking for a larger representation of the consumers have shown no real ground for it. The position of the various parties is fixed under the Bill, and if the consumers had the whole representation on this Commission it would not give them any more power over price reduction or anything of that sort. This is a technical commission and will have to deal with a large number of technical matters which affect the parties concerned, and most closely of all the farmer. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has laid stress on the fact that the whole expenses of this Commission will fall on the farmer and I have great sympathy with his proposal that they should have a much larger representation so that the expenses might be kept within reasonable limits. If they are not kept within reasonable limits it will not affect the price of bread; it will make no difference at all. The hon. and learned Member read out some of the duties which the Wheat Commission will have to perform, notably duties in connection with payments. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to some other duties of this Commission and ask whether the farmer is not in a better position to carry out these duties than representatives of the consumers. In Clause 4 the duties of the Commission are to decide
that the wheat was home-grown wheat of the claimant's own growing;
that the wheat was millable wheat;
that the wheat was sold by the claimant;
the form of wheat certificates and for the issue thereof to registered growers by persons authorised by the by-laws;
What has the consumer to do with that? Then we come to paragraph (e).
for securing that wheat certificates shall not be issued to a registered grower in
respect of any wheat until that wheat has been despatched by him on delivery to the person named in the certificate;
These are all technical details of which the farmer has knowledge and of which the representatives of the millers and bakers will have knowledge, but I do not see how the consumers' representatives will have the necessary knowledge. Therefore, from the point of view of the smooth working of this Commission the best policy is to give the greater representation of the actual growers whose interests it will be to make the Commission work. In the absence of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the biscuit industry will be represented amongst the consumers? I entirely agree that the biscuit industry ought to be considered, because it is a very large consumer of British flour.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing an Amendment which has not yet been reached.

Mr. HASLAM: I regret to find that that is so, but I thought that, perhaps, on this Amendment I could ask the Minister, seeing that he is adding three to the consumers, whether these three would be of that nature.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot deal with that subject now.

Mr. HASLAM: Then I must wait. I hope I can make the point that on this Commission it would be the right thing to have a representation of one of the largest consumers of British wheat.

Mr. ATTLEE: It is extremely interesting to get the point of view of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) and of the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam), particularly on the question of who pays under this Bill. The hon. Member for Horncastle has the extraordinary idea that somehow or other the farmer has to pay. Let us be quite clear as to what really happens. This money is being taken from the consumers and is being paid to the farmers. It is true that the bakers are accessories and the millers are accessories, and as to the dealers, no doubt something will stick to them, but they are all of them getting it out of the consumer. Let us see what the Wheat Commission has to do.

Sir J. LAMB: If something is guaranteed to the hon. Member and something is deducted from it before he receives it, does he pay?

Mr. HASLAM: I did not suggest that any crime was being committed.

Mr. ATTLEE: If the hon. Members for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) pick my pockets and go fifty-fifty, it does not make any difference to the fact that it all comes out of my pocket.

Mr. HASLAM: We are trying merely to get justice for the unfortunate farmers who are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Mr. ATTLEE: Of course it is all right while it is being done under the form of law. The fact is that this money is being extracted from the pockets of the consumers. If it was a Socialist Government that was putting on taxation in this way hon. Members opposite would be going round the country and calling out "Robbery!" It is only the point of view that differs. The fact that this is being done by law does not alter the fact that it means taking someone's goods and giving them to someone else.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Nothing that the Wheat Commission could do could put that money back into the hon. Member's pocket.

Mr. ATTLEE: I was coming to that point. If the hon. and learned Member will read the Bill more closely he will find that there are certain points at which the Wheat Commission does come in and has to decide how much is to be taken. According to Sub-section (3) of Clause I the Wheat Commission is to make representations with regard to certain classes of wheat and the Minister is going to fix the price at which these ire to be purchased, after consultation with the Commission. And the Commission is to consist of farmers. The Minister will consult the farmers as to what is the price to be paid—to the farmers. The Minister is going to find out, there being no sale of this particular product, what is the price that a willing buyer would pay, and the authority on that subject is to be the farmer, the seller. It is a most remarkable thing.
All the millable wheat that is bought is to be considered as having been
bought in the cereal year. Then we go a little further. There is provision enabling payments in advance to be made to registered growers in any cereal year. The Commission has the power to advance money to farmers, so that they get their money earlier. And the Wheat Commission will consist of farmers. Go again a little further. The Commission can require registered growers to keep records and to furnish returns of all wheat bought and sold by them. The Commission consists of farmers. Again, the Commission can make by-laws,
for the manner in which the price of home-grown millable wheat bought from registered growers by the Flour Millers' Corporation in pursuance of the requirements of any order of the Minister shall be determined according to quality and market conditions by reference to the price specified in the order.
The price which the farmer is to get is to be decided by a Commission consisting of farmers. It is a preposterous suggestion to give a majority representation to farmers. All minorities claim that it is extraordinarily unjust unless they have a majority on a commission or body. When I was in India we found that out very often. Different communities came to us, and if we worked out the percentages that they all demanded we found that the 100 per cent. had gone up to about 170 per cent. for the whole body. We are not asking anything very extraordinary. We are putting the case for the consumers very mildly. The consumer is going to pay the whole lot, but we do not ask for more than a fifty-fifty representation.
The two main interests under this Bill are the consumers, who have to pay, and the farmers, who are to receive. The intermediate interests which will receive something will certainly make something out of it. When sub-divided the proposals are very generous to the farmers, and extremely generous to the millers. There then come in the importers and the dealers, and eventually we get down to the consumers, not merely the poor people who pay the money, but presumably the biscuit people and the bakers. The consumers are coming off extraordinarily badly. Anyone who knows anything of the working of these nixed bodies, on which there are the consumers on the one side and the vested
interests on the other, knows that all the vested interests combine against the consumer. It is perfectly clear that, however the Government divide the numbers among the vested interests, the growers, the millers and the importers, the big main division will be between the consumers and the vested interests, and we suggest a fifty-fifty basis, with a chairman holding the balance.

9.0 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I realise that the question of numbers and representation on any body such as this is always liable to give rise to a great deal of difference of opinion. I have kept before me one guiding fact, that this is a body instituted primarily for the effective working of the machinery of this Measure. It is in my judgment far less essential that there should be any question of majorities of this or that interest, than that we should aim at having a body upon which all interests directly connected with the problem shall have representation. It is clearly important that in dealing with a problem of this kind the numbers should not be so large as to cause undue expense. I have not made any closer estimate of the expense than that which I have already stated. I do not anticipate that a very considerable expense will be involved in dealing with the duties of the Wheat Commission. In the Debate of 9th March, I gave certain figures which I now repeat:
I cannot make any definite estimate but let us assume certain figures for a moment in order that we may see the kind of thing which might take place. If, for example, the cost of administration amounted to £30,000 per annum the deduction from the deficiency payment for an anticipated supply of the full 6,000,000 quarters under the Measure would be one and one-tenth of a penny per qr.; and if the expenses were as high as £40,000 per annum the deduction would be one and three-fifths of a penny per qr."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 9th March, 1932; cols. 1857–1858, Vol. 262.]
As regards the anxiety of those who speak for the farmers, it is essential that we should have on the Commission farmers who can speak with knowledge of the wheat industry and can advise on matters pertaining to the industry which they represent, but I am inclined to think that their interest in the expense is going to be met, just in proportion to the cooperation which the farming community as a whole give to the working out of this problem. May I point out that it
is less in the central body and more in the localities that expense may arise and that on this side of the problem the farming community have the matter in their own hands, because the closer the co-operation between themselves and the others the less will be the expense. I am constrained to say to my farming and agricultural friends that I think it reasonable that they should have the representation which we have given them, but I do not think that the interest, for example, of the corn merchants in the country districts is going to be antagonistic to the farming interest. Quite the contrary. If that be so, you have four farmers and two representing the purchasers of wheat, making six, and if you turn to the five representatives of the consumers, one of these clearly is going to represent the bakers. I understand that I should be ruled out from making any reference to the subsequent Amendment in regard to biscuit makers, and I shall deal with them later. The truth is that it is impossible to please everyone in this matter. I have tried to the utmost of my abilitiy to take into account all the representations which I have received from a great variety of quarters, and I have arrived at the conclusion that it would be reasonable to increase the number as I am proposing to do. If we are to start OW: with the idea, either that the interests of the consumers on the one hand should be represented in the degree of fifty-fifty, or, on the other hand, that other interests should be in the majority we are going to get nowhere. I shall always listen with the greatest attention to any representations which may be made on this subject, but I think, frankly, that the proposal which I now make on behalf of the Government that we should increase the number in the proportions which I have indicated, from 12 to 15, ought to give proper representation to every kind of interest that is concerned in this problem, and I repeat that the matter is not to be judged from the point of view of getting majorities of one or other of these interests, but from the point of view of getting a machine which will work with the greatest efficiency.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We are gratified that the right hon. Gentleman has yielded to pressure from the Opposition
and has increased the number from. 12 to 15 and that increased representation is conceded to the consumer. Before we allow this matter to pass, however, perhaps the First Commissioner of Works on behalf of the Minister would take a note of this suggestion. Including the two independent and impartial persons, namely, the chairman and vice-chairman, the number is now to be increased from 14 to 17 but the interests still retain a majority of that 17. It is conceivable, without making any imputations or charging any person or persons with malpractices, that the impartial members, namely, the chairman and the vice-chairman, with the five representatives of the consumers, might find themselves in a minority on some decision.
I suggest for example a decision upon the definition of "millable wheat." It is to be remembered that the Minister, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, is to define what is or is not "millable wheat." It is conceivable that a division of opinion might arise on that subject and that all the interests might take one point of view upon it and they would then constitute a majority. To that extent the consumers' representation, even though it be increased as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, would still be left in a minority and the interests represented on the Wheat Commission could carry their point. They could make their own definition of mill-able wheat, or their own determination as to price, or have their own way as regards the issuing of certificates and all the various matters which will be placed in the Commission's hands. We think that the right hon. Gentleman might have arranged it so that the two independent and impartial persons—the chairman and vice-chairman—along with the consumers' representation, would have constituted a majority of the 17, that is to say that the consumers should have eight representatives instead of five. After all, as has already been said, the consumer is paying the piper, and he is entitled at least to call some of the tune.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I very much regret that the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendment to increase the representatives of the producers on this Commission. All through
these Debates he has shown himself very hard-hearted to any Amendments which have been put forward from this side. He has accepted a few from the other side, but none to improve the Bill from the point of view of the agriculturists. An hon. Member opposite pointed out that the Wheat Commission would deal very largely with the farmers, and by that very fact he showed that the farmers ought to have increased representation on the Commission, because the Commission will deal with them and will not to a great extent affect the consumers. All the expenses of the Commission have to come out of the deficiency payments and thus may be said to come out of the farmers' pockets. After the consumer has once paid the money to the Commission, it does not matter what happens to it, whether the Commission spends £5,000, or £50,000, or £500,000; all the money will be paid by the farmers. We do not ask for a majority of farmers on the Commission, but we do ask for a fair representation, and I very much regret that the Minister has not seen his way to granting it.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment that I call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), in line 13, to leave out "four" and insert "two."

Sir S. CRIPPS: In view of the alteration from 12 to 15, and the fact that the Minister has agreed to increase the representation of the consumers, my hon. Friends do not desire to move any of these intermediate Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), in line 13, to leave out "four" and insert "eight."

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am extremely dissatisfied with the action of the Minister, and—

The CHAIRMAN: Order. I only select this Amendment to be put to the Committee, not to be discussed.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I was only making a small protest, but I do not wish to move the Amendment.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to move, in page 26, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
one of whom shall be representative of agricultural co-operative societies which are dealers in such wheat.
In the Schedule there are two representatives of the dealers in home-grown millable wheat, and the Amendment is to the effect that one of them shall be a representative of agricultural co-operative societies. We have been told very often how desirable it is that farmers should avail themselves of the principle of co-operation, and I hope that on this occasion I shall have the full support of hon. Members opposite in this Amendment. This is an opportunity for the Government to say that they will give encouragement to farmers to dispose of their wheat to the Commission through co-operative societies, which will very largely minimise both the expense and the trouble of the transaction. I hope I shall receive more generous treatment from the Government on this Amendment than I have on some other Amendments that I have put forward.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Minister is very anxious not to dictate in the decision as to who shall represent particular categories, and I think that that is strictly right. It may be that if the agricultural co-operative societies are doing a considerable proportion of the wheat business, as purchasers and sellers of wheat, they will get one of the two representatives, and no doubt a day may come when that will be so, but as things are to-day the work done by the agricultural co-operative societies in actually dealing with wheat is very small compared with that done by the corn merchants. The Government certainly hope that it will grow, but they do not wish to be tied here, and now, at the commencement of this Measure, and to laying down exactly to which categories the dealers' representatives should belong.
There are many categories of co-operative societies which are purchasers of wheat and which deal with wheat on the wheat market, and it is very undesirable to lay down that a single one of these organisations must have representation. Accordingly, it is undesirable to accept the Amendment, though I am sure that my right hon. Friend, when he comes
to make his choice, will give every consideration, if a suitable name is put forward connected with co-operative societies, to that name, and probably he will not only be connected with that work but will be dealing in other matters as well; but a statutory limitation such as is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) is, in the opinion of the Minister, most undesirable to include in the fixed letter of the Statute.

Sir J. LAMB: The Minister has himself put down a later Amendment to do that.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Only in regard to bakers, and that is one out of five, but I would point out that this would limit this representation to one out of two. Regard must be had to the volume of trade being done. If the Act goes on for some considerable time, as I hope it will, the personnel of the Commission can and will be changed, but we think that, at any rate to start with, it is very undesirable to lay down rigidly particular categories. If I may repeat what the Minister said just now, the whole conception of the working of this Commission as if it was a sort of miniature House of Commons divided into parties, is out of the question. The Commission will obviously work the scheme with mutual give and take. We all know the work of this kind of Commission. It is not a question of a majority here and a minority there. People with different technical experience, because that is what it comes to, concerned in the wheat business, whether as growers, distributors, or users, will come together to work an Act of Parliament, and they will work as a team. It is unlikely that there will be this sort of clear-cut divisions, and we must not be so egocentric as to think that the Wheat Commission will work as we do in this House of Commons.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech on the necessity of not naming any of these representatives, and he has convinced me that that is the right policy. Indeed, I do not think there is anything to be said on the other side. In the circumstances, would it not be the fairest and wisest thing—fairest from the point of view of argument, and wisest from the point of view of economy of time—if we had this Amendment withdrawn and the Minister's later Amendment also withdrawn?
If that were done, the Minister would be in a completely logical position. He almost contradicts himself by introducing this principle in a later Amendment. I do not want the names of any particular persons to be mentioned, but to see the Minister free in his choice. Would it not be wise, if my hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment, for the Minister to withdraw his, for it is not right for the Minister to ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment when he himself is to move a similar Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 26, line 13, at the end, to insert the words: "one of whom shall represent growers of wheat in Scotland."—[Mr. McKie.]

Mr. McKIE: May I ask if the Amendment which stands in my name and that of some of my hon. Friends is out of order, as it has not been called?

The CHAIRMAN: It was not selected.

Mr. McKIE: Shall I be in order in raising it on the Question, "That the Schedule stand part"?

The CHAIRMAN: I think that that will be in order. The hon. Member can try when the time comes.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 21, to leave out the word "two," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."

This Amendment is consequential on the statement which the Minister made on the initiation of this discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
of whom one at least shall be appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread.
I admit that this Amendment is not strictly logical, but it was considered, after discussion, very desirable that the Wheat Commission should be ensured of having a technical baker as one of its members, that is to say, that they should have the assistance of somebody who could put before them various points that arise in connection with the really
technical processes of producing bread. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) made a very long speech on the Second Reading, and told us all about the machine making of loaves. If I may be forgiven a personal reference, I would say that I think sometimes that a machine-made loaf is not nearly so good as the home-made loaf which you get in the country districts, but that is entirely a matter of taste. It has been impressed upon my right hon. Friend that it is important that the technical aspects of baking bread should be brought from time to time before the Wheat Commission.
It is true that last year only a comparatively small proportion of British-grown wheat found itself in bread. On the other hand, that has not been the experience of previous years. The amount of British-grown wheat that finds its way into bread and into other forms of user of flour varies very much in different years; it varies partly according to seasonal quality, and partly to alternative wheats offering. That makes an additional reason why it is desirable for the successful working of this scheme that there should be a baker on the Commission as a liaison, as it were, with the baking trade. A good many of us hope that in future years a higher proportion of British wheat will be included in bread. It is desirable that that should become a habit. We do not desire to have those terrific quotas that they have in foreign countries where they insist on the physical admixture of a very high proportion of home-grown flour. It is fully recognised that British wheat is used for all kinds of other purposes, such as biscuits, to great advantage, but it is important for the nation and the future of our bread supply that some proportion of British wheat should find its way into the household supplies of all the citizens of the land. For that reason, there seems to be a special case why one out of the five consumers should be a technically qualified baker.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting this proposal of ours in regard to a member of the baking industry being one of the consumers, because we think that it will be useful.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I would like my right hon. Friend to help us in a certain position that may arise in regard to the proportion of British wheat in bread. We know that the percentage of moisture—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot raise that matter on this Amendment.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I want to safeguard provincial bakers having some say in the arrangement. The Minister might appoint London bakers, but we want the provincial bakers to be represented.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should have put down an Amendment on that point. We cannot discuss it on this Amendment.

Mr. MANDER: I should like also to thank the Minister for accepting our Amendment. I want to resist the argument of logicality, because there is nothing an Englishman hates more than seeming to be logical. I was asked by some of my constituents to put down an Amendment for two bakers, but the Minister has gone a long way to meet us, and has left open the possibility of adding another baker. It would, therefore, be impossible to ask for anything more satisfactory.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Let the other one be a provincial baker.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I can well understand that this Amendment is bad enough to be proposed by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). Just now I said how much I regretted seeing the Minister backsliding from the perfect path which he was pursuing, and I should like to point out how bad the Amendment is. If you read it you will see it says that one, at least, shall be appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread. There are a large number of people who bake bread, farmers' wives, and so on, and therefore this is a very wide Amendment, and, technically, the Minister may be put in a rather difficult position if he accepts it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is, of course, quite right in what he said, and I should make it clear
that, although one baker is specifically referred to here, the Board of Trade, which will be the Department consulted in this matter, would not prevent the Minister of Agriculture from appointing representatives of users of flour or of the consumers. It may happen that more than one baker may get on, one perhaps as a technical baker and the other as a consumer. I would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that one, at least, would be appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread. That does not mean that the individual selected is necessarily the sort of person he thinks of or for which every baker in the country, provincial and London, and farmers' wives would necessarily vote. It means somebody who can bring to the Wheat Commission a really valuable and useful knowledge of the particular trade.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
In page 26, line 22, at the end, to insert the words: "(f) of whom one shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits."—[Dr. Howitt.]

The CHAIRMAN: Dr. Howitt.

Sir S. CRIPPS: On a point of Order. Are not there already 15 in all to be appointed under the various paragraphs that we have passed and can there be another representative?

The CHAIRMAN: I have not counted them up so I am not quite sure whether there would be room for the biscuit representatives to come in among any of the other classes.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Several of the representatives under paragraph (e) are not named, so that you could name another.

Sir S. CRIPPS: On a point of Order. This is a new paragraph.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It could come under paragraph (e) and that would be quite simple.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is right. I do not think there is room to put in another Member here. This Amendment would be shut out by the fact that the total number has now been limited to 15, and all those
15 have been dealt with under the Amendments we have disposed of and the paragraphs of the Schedule which we have reached.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I agree that if you put it under paragraph (f) it would be wrong, but suppose that the hon. Member omits the prefix "(f)" and makes it read:
of whom one shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits,
would not that be in order?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member were to move it, leaving out the distinguishing (f) at the beginning, it would be an addition to paragraph (e) and would then read:
as representing the interests of consumers of flour, five members, of whom one shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits.
If he moves it in that form, it will be in order.

Dr. HOWITT: I beg to move, in page 26, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
and one of whom shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits.
9.30 p.m.
During this Debate we have often heard of the importance of the manufacture of biscuits in this country, and though perhaps very few of us knew before, everybody in this House to-day knows that biscuits are made with between 90 and 100 per cent. of flour which has been milled from home-grown wheat. That is partly why I suggest this Amendment. The town which I have the honour to represent is famous throughout the world for its excellent biscuits, and consequently the manufacture of biscuits with this high percentage of home-grown English milled flour does give a tremendous amount of employment to the farmers. I am therefore very anxious that the Minister should consider this Amendment, The fashion in food changes, and I trust that after the knowledge which has been gained from the Debates in this House of what a very British thing the biscuit is more biscuits will be consumed, and therefore there will be still more people employed by the manufacturers and by the farmers. I should like also to bring to the Minister's attention the importance of the export trade in biscuits. Biscuits are, as far as I know, the only form in which our flour is exported from this country. I there-
fore hope the Minister will realise the importance of this Amendment and accept the suggestion that one of the commissioners should represent the manufacturers of biscuits.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I beg to support the Amendment that has been moved by nay hon. Friend. It is a, very modest request. Other Members representing other interests have asked for a second in command for their representative, and they suggested that the representative of a particular industry might suffer from a cold and should have somebody to replace him. We are only asking for a single representative of this most important industry. I hope the Minister will bear in mind that the biscuit manufacturers of this country buy about 60 per cent. of the flour milled from British wheat. My hon. Friend alluded to the importance of the export trade in biscuits. I would remind the Minister that somewhere about 50,000 people are employed in the biscuit industry in this country, and I think I am right in saying that the capital invested in the industry amounts to about £14,000,000. Again, 90 to 100 per cent. of the flour used by the biscuit manufacturers of this country is milled from British wheat. I support the Amendment most earnestly, and hope the Minister will accede to our request.

Mr. SKELTON: I have great sympathy with what has been said by the Mover of the Amendment and the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears). We all fully appreciate the valuable character of the biscuit trade, the large proportion of British flour which it uses and the large proportion of its products which are exported, and nobody would wish that anything should be done, by Act of Parliament or otherwise, which would inflict any injury upon it. Indeed, we are happy to think that nothing of that sort will be done by this Bill. The only question in connection with the industry which arises at this point in the Schedule is whether or not one of the five representatives of the consumers shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits. On that point I would only venture to repeat what the Minister said a moment ago, that it is very undesirable to earmark a member or members of the Commission as specially attached to special trades. When there are only five members definitely repre-
senting consumers, to earmark one, as we have done already in the case of the bakers, is probably a sufficient restriction of the free area of choice.
I think my hon. Friends may rest satisfied with the present situation, by reason of the very important character of the biscuit industry. Its importance will undoubtedly turn the Minister and the Board of Trade to the consideration of whether so important a flour-consuming industry should not naturally be represented on the Wheat Commission. I do not propose to give, nor could I give, any assurance that there will always be a representative of the biscuit manufacturers on the Commission, but, knowing what we do, one can hardly imagine any one category of flour consumers more likely to be on the Commission. Still, that is a very different matter from earmarking yet another of the five representatives of the consumers. The Government are extremely glad that the matter has been brought before the attention of the Committee, but, keeping the considerations to which I have referred in view, we think the Committee may well rest contented with the situation as it is, and I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment if he can see his way to do so.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I would like to support the plea which has been put forward for giving representations to so important an industry as that of biscuit making. At the same time that I say how very grateful I am to the Under-Secretary for the sympathetic answer he has given to the representations which have been made, I would like to remind him that this industry is important from the point of view of national defence. There is no doubt that in the South African War and in the late War we should not have been able to supply our troops with biscuits, which are the only food which the soldiers can carry in all countries, if it had not been for the great predominance of the British biscuit-making trade. It really is an industry of very great importance from the point of view of defence. The Government have promised representation to the bakers and I think they ought to treat the biscuit manufacturers in the same way.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 23, to leave out from the word "person," to the word "the" in line 26.
This Amendment is to be read in conjunction with the following Amendment—in page 26, line 27, to leave out the words "that class," and to insert instead thereof the words:
the various classes of persons."—
which is consequential on it. These two Amendments would make the sentence read,
and before appointing any person the Minister shall consult such bodies as in his opinion represent the various classes of persons.
I do not know why the Minister proposes two separate methods of appointing the representatives of the various interests. In the case of the consumers of flour he is to consult the Board of Trade. In the other cases he consults,
such bodies as, in his opinion, represent that class.
I see that the Minister has put down an Amendment with reference to a special consultation as regards the interests of bakers, and I ask him to consider whether it would not simplify his task if he took this form of words, which would leave him free to consult such bodies as are representative of the different classes of persons.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think there is very much in what the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has said. We all know that in practice when the Minister makes up a commission of this kind, composed of people of different types of experience and knowledge, it has always been the custom to consult the appropriate organisations. Undoubtedly, the concluding words proposed by the Minister do give a certain amount of satisfaction to all those who were consulted in the drawing up of the terms of the Bill. The provisions in this Measure were very carefully gone into by those representing the millers, and undoubtedly there was an understanding that the Millers' Organisation should be consulted without the Minister being tied down to accepting everything that they proposed.
I notice that another hon. Friend of mine is going to raise a question of the representation of Scotland, but I think it is obvious that Scotland should be represented on this Commission, and no doubt the hon. Member will approach the appro-
priate Scottish organisation. It is true that we are accustomed to what we call the tautological use of the same words, using them in two senses. When we provide that the Minister shall consult the Board of Trade it means that the Board of Trade has the nomination, and that those interests who wish to be represented as principal users and consumers of flour will make their representations to the Board of Trade. If it is intended to appoint a miller or a flour importer, the Minister will consult the Millers' Organisation or the Flour Importers' Organisation with a view to getting names from which he can select representatives. On the whole, I see no advantage in leaving out the words as suggested in the Amendment.

Mr. ATTLEE: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that he cannot consult any organisation except through the Board of Trade?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Board of Trade is the proper Department to deal with industrial interests, and the interests of the consumers and biscuit manufacturers. The whole Council operates in connection with the Board of Trade, and that is the proper organisation which is in touch with those bodies. If you try to select one body representative of all domestic consumers, you cannot do it, because the only body which represents all domestic consumers is the House of Commons. To consult the House of Commons in selecting a representative of the domestic consumers is not a practical suggestion. I think the words which are in the Schedule will give every satisfaction.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 26, line 24, after the word "shall," insert the words:
(except in the case of a person appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread).

In line 25, after the word "representing," insert the words:
bakers of bread or."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RHY5 DAVIES:
In page 26, line 28, to leave out the words "Every member," and to insert instead thereof the words "The members.

In line 29, after the word "such," to insert the word "uniform."

To leave out the words "have been," and to insert instead thereof the word "be."

In line 30, to leave out the words "before his appointment."

In line 31, to leave out from the word "remuneration," to the end of the paragraph.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 26, line 28, to leave out the words "Every member" and to insert instead thereof the words "The members.
I hope the Committee will bear with me for a few minutes while I deal with several Amendments standing in my name.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Am I right in assuming that the five Amendments standing in the hon. Member's name are practically one?

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, Sir. Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule contains these words:
Every member of the Commission shall hold and vacate office in accordance with such conditions as may have been determined by the Minister before his appointment.
We are raising this question in order to get some more information from the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will see his way to accept our Amendment after we have explained why we think the changes we suggest will make the Bill more clear. As the paragraph now stands it is quite possible for the Minister to appoint one section of representatives for one year, another section for two years, another for three, four or five years. We are appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to insert words to secure uniformity, and we wish to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman intends doing in regard to these appointments. Will he appoint all the members of the Commission for a period of three or five years, or will he appoint some for one period and the remainder for one, two, three or four years. Will he arrange for them to retire in rotation I have had some experience in connection with one or two Government Departments, and, as a rule, retirements have been arranged to take place in rotation after a period of two or three years. The point raised in the last of these Amend-
ments with regard to remuneration should, perhaps, be dealt with separately, and I will now confine myself to the question of uniformity in the appointment of these gentlemen. It would seem to be a very cumbersome way of handling the problem to say that the Minister will appoint every member of the Commission in accordance with such conditions as may have been determined by the Minister. That seems to suggest that every one of the 15 is to have separate consideration from the Minister before appointment. Our Amendments would tend to secure uniformity, instead of separate treatment as is suggested in this paragraph.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This problem of tenure of office is one upon which different views may be held, but I think I am right in saying that it would be undesirable that the whole of the members of this body should be appointed at one time and should retire all at the same time. I think it is desirable that there should be a variation in the periods when the members should be appointed. As the Measure is drawn, we are not so circumscribed that we should have to appoint a certain number of people to this body in order that there might be continuity, but members would come in from time to time, and, at any rate, there would not be a complete hiatus in the management of the body. That seems to me to be the practical course to take.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We are a little concerned as to the form of this paragraph, which appears to allow the Minister to make special conditions with regard to each individual member before that member is appointed, and conditions which will apply only to that member. I appreciate the point that one does not want them all to retire at the same time, so that there would be a break in continuity, but it is possible to provide for that and still have uniform conditions of service. We are anxious, for instance, that the farmers' representatives should not be serving on certain terms and the consumers' representatives on other terms, or that one individual should not be picked out and serve on some specific terms. We want a general rule which will apply to them all. Whether these words are convenient or not does not matter, but we want some general rule,
so that they will all be on an equality. If they have to retire at different periods, it will be easy so to arrange. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look into this matter, and see if he can frame words on Report which will show that all the members of the commission will be treated alike, although their terms may end at different times, we should be quite happy so far as these words are concerned.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I could not accept the Amendment in this form, but am quite willing to look into the matter very carefully between now and Report.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 26, line 31, to leave out from the word "remuneration" to the end of the paragraph.
10.0 p.m.
This Amendment refers to the point that the chairman and vice-chairman are to be paid remuneration for their services, but no remuneration is to be paid to the other members of the Commission. We are not at all happy about the situation; there are two or three considerations in regard to it that ought to be borne in mind by the Government. In the first place, unless the members of the Commission are paid some remuneration, the whole of the work will naturally devolve upon the chairman and vice-chairman. It seems to me, from my rather long experience of committee work, that the tendency will naturally be for the duties devolving upon the committee to fall into the hands of the chairman and vice-chairman anyhow, and especially if they are paid remuneration and the other members are not. I do not know whether the Minister is proposing not to pay the members of the Commission for reasons of economy, but it is obvious that this Commission will not function as efficiently if they are paid nothing except out-of-pocket expenses. I should say that it is the experience of everyone that men work better and more efficiently if they are properly remunerated. Therefore, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why the members of the Commission are omitted from the provision as to remuneration.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have consulted very carefully with all the interests concerned and it was put to me strongly by those interests that, while it might be necessary to pay remuneration to the chairman and vice-chairman, those whom I have consulted would desire that actual salaries should not be paid to other members of the Commission. On the other hand, it is provided by the terms of Clause 11 (1, f) that the Minister by regulation can provide for the scales of travelling and other allowances, including allowances by way of compensation for loss of time, which may be paid to the members of the Commission. I think that that method of dealing with the problem is, perhaps, the most effective, and it is in accord with the practice followed in other circumstances of a similar nature. It is for that reason, and because of the views of those whom I have consulted, that this line has been taken.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about Clause 11 (1, f), but we are very nervous least the third paragraph of this Schedule might override that provision. The third paragraph of the Schedule is the one which controls the constitution of the Commission, and, if it is specifically laid down that the conditions may not provide for the payment of remuneration in the case of any other person than the chairman or vice-chairman, it might well be held that compensation for loss of time was remuneration—which, of course, it is, though another ward happens to be used—and that the paragraph dealing with the constitution of the Commission might override Clause 11 (1, f). For that reason we thought that, if these words were left out, and the power was given to provide for payment of remuneration at large, there would then be that general power controlled by Clause 11 (1, f), and there would be an indication that that general remuneration was to be in the form laid down in Clause 11 (1, f). We are afraid that, if it is done the other way, it may be said that, in spite of Clause 11 (1, f), nobody can be paid except the chairman or vice-chairman. Therefore, we would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider these words.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I hope that the Minister will not accept anything in the shape of this Amendment. We are already
setting up here a fully paid chairman and vice-chairman, and we have already inserted in the Bill a, provision as to travelling expenses and allowances for loss of time. That would seem to be a sufficient cost to set up under the administration of the Bill at present. If you accept the Amendment, sooner or later the whole of the members will be paid. One will have an adequate and a reasonable excuse, and then another will have to be paid. Then in 10 or 15 years we shall get a change of Government and they will all be paid automatically. I have been long enough in the House to see how these salaried posts creep up. When you have an Amendment of this kind, every supporter of the Government ought to urge the Government with all his power to resist it, because it has a hidden meaning all the time. Hon. Members On my right intend to set up the largest bureaucracy they possibly can. The Minister is much sharper and more acute than many people realise, but I do not want to leave any stone unturned. The Government have tripped once very badly to-night, and some influence may come along in a minute or two and persuade the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw from the strong position that he has taken up. If he does, I should most certainly have to do my best to oppose him. I do not think he will, and I urge him on no consideration to accept any Amendment coming from that quarter.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 27, line 1, leave out the word "seven," and insert instead thereof the word "nine."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 27, line 23, at the end, to add the words:
and any member who fails to disclose such interest or votes upon any question relating to a contract in which he has an interest shall be disqualified for membership of the Commission and be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
It is usual in these cases to lay down some penalty if persons do not disclose those matters that they are required to disclose when they have an interest. As it stands, the only punishment for a person who is interested voting is that his
vote does not count, and that does not hurt him very much, whereas, if a Member of Parliament does a similar thing, he is liable to a fine of £500 a day. In all these cases there has always been a penalty of some sort or another in order to make sure that a person who is obliged to disclose his interest in contracts and so on shall do so and, if he does not, some penalty shall be placed upon him. The penalty that we have put down is a quite ordinary penalty and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will either accept it in this form or tell us that he will look into the matter and see that some sort of protection is inserted.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think this is really rather an unnecessary step to take. I should imagine that the members of the Commission will be chosen because of their reputable character. I think anything approaching this kind of penalty is not really called for, but I will have a careful look at the subject.

Mr. ATTLEE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not got at all scared by the interposition of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who addressed him rather like a maiden aunt threatening to give him a terribly sharp slap if he was not a good boy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it to heart.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened except for the not very virile speech that we have just heard. The Amendment goes rather a long way. I represent a very large number of cooperators, and I am afraid if the Amendment was carried it might have a very severe effect on certain co-operative people on the Committee. I always stand up for every section of my community when attacked by one or other section of the Socialist party, and I must certainly point out how very foolish the Amendment is, because it might conceivably injure the position of co-operators on such a committee. It is necessary to warn the Government to look very closely at the words of the Opposition, because, though they are not very good, they sometimes have a hidden meaning.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will look into the matter, I hope he will consider the provisions of Sec-
tion 149 of the Companies Act, 1929, which deals with the matter in a very much better way than that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment negatived.

SECOND SCHEDULE.— (Constitution and Proceedings of Flour Millers' Corporation.)

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, in page 27, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
among which shall be included the flour milling industry joint industrial council.
The Minister will possibly say that he will probably in any case consult this council, but I think this is an opportunity for giving to one of these joint industrial councils, which are doing such excellent work in industry in different parts of the country, that recognition to which they are entitled. I believe this council is a very good one and I feel sure that the Minister would be well advised in asking their opinion as to who should be chosen. The council is a joint one. It represents employés as well as employers. In that way the employés are brought in. I do not know that they could be consulted by any other machinery which the Minister could set up. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to give some encouragement to bodies of this character by actually incorporating into the Statute their right to be consulted—and only consulted—on a matter of this kind.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that there must be a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment as to what actually takes place. The Flour Millers' Corporation is to be established under the Act primarily to carry into effect the orders which the Minister may make for the purchase of unsold stocks of wheat. It is not a matter which imposes any liability upon anyone but the millers as owners of the milling companies. It imposes no liability of any sort upon the workers, so that really they have no interest, direct or indirect, in this problem, and, in the circumstances, I think that the Committee will agree that the Amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. MANDER: In view of what the Minister has said, I must make this point. I wish to challenge the suggestion that the workers in an industry are not interested in every side of the work of that industry. It is taking a very narrow and short-sighted view to say that the question of wages may not be involved, and that therefore it has nothing to do with the workers, and they are not interested at all. I wish to make a protest against that particular view of industry.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I wish to join with the hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Mander) in what he has said, and would like to emphasise the point which he has made. There is in this industry one of the best joint industrial councils in the land. The flour milling industry Joint Industrial Council is indeed unique, and if the right hon. Gentleman can in any way consult it, I feel sure that thousands of employés in the milling industry will be very pleased indeed.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened except that once again we have an opportunity of pointing out how the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) are always taking the sort of line that certain people cannot look after themselves. The average man working in industry is capable of looking after himself. The line which the hon. Members are taking to-night is an unjustifiable one. Some hon. Lady might just as well ask why there cannot be a woman Member appointed. I appeal to the Government to appoint the people best able to look after the job.

Mr. MANDER: Has the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) not made it perfectly clear that he thinks the Minister cannot look after himself?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: No, I said that the Minister wants a little additional protection in the House of Commons when he has an opposition which was returned to support him, always opposing him.

Amendment negatived.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 27, line 36, to leave out from the word "conditions" to the second word "as" in line 37.
We are not at all certain why the Flour Millers' Corporation should be re-
munerated, apparently, at the expense of the consumer. The cost of the remuneration of the officers, or the people who form the Flour Millers' Corporation, will presumably come out of the wheat subsidy. It seems a curious thing that if the Wheat Commission is not to be paid, the Flour Millers' Corporation is to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman has already told us that he only wishes to pay the chairman and vice-chairman of the Wheat Commission, and yet we have a provision by which, apparently, all the members of the Flour Millers' Corporation are to be entitled to remuneration, which may be fixed under this Schedule. We suggest that whatever the arguments may be for the payment of out-of-pocket expenses and other remuneration to the Wheat Commission, which is a semi-Governmental one, that in regard to this Corporation, which is purely to protect the interest of the millers, there is no possible excuse for paying them and putting the cost of their salaries upon the consumers of flour. We suggest that these words should be taken out and that there should be no payment to members of the Flour Millers' Corporation. They will all probably be wealthy flour millers, and there is no reason why, for the small amount of extra, work that they may have to do in their own interests, they should be paid out of this fund.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is true that the primary purpose for which the Flour Millers' Corporation is being established will probably not provide any case for remuneration, but such a case might arise where, by agreement between the Minister, the Wheat Commission and the Fleur Millers' Corporation, some special assistance was given to the Wheat Commission by the Corporation under Clause 4 (3) dealing with quota payments by the Flour Millers' Corporation on behalf of millers, and we feel that if that was so and if actual work of that kind were done, it would be reasonable to have the power to pay some remuneration. As I said at the outset, it will probably not be necessary, but we desire to have the power to make some payment in case we enter into a contract by which services will be rendered and for which some payment would be reasonable.

Sir S, CRIPPS: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that this service will be done by the people who
are going to be appointed to run the Flour Millers' Corporation. They can be paid for the service of the clerks and so on, who are part of the expenses of the Corporation, but this is a question of remunerating the actual people who form the Corporation, five or six directors, or people in that position. The mere fact that the Corporation of which they are directors undertakes to collect some money through their staff, surely does not

give a reason why we should pay them directors' fees. They are engaged in their own interest in running the Corporation specially for their own benefit under the Act, and we ought to make it clear that they are not going to get the fees of directors for this work.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 35.

Division No. 133.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mabane, William


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKie, John Hamilton


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
McLean, Major Alan


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fox, Sir Gilford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Balniel, Lord
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Goff, Sir Park
Martin, Thomas B.


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton w.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Blindell, James
Gower, Sir Robert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Borodale, Viscount
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bossom, A. C.
Graves, Marjorie
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Boulton, W. W.
Greene, William P. C.
Milne, Charles


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B,
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Briant, Frank
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moreing, Adrian C


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hales, Harold K.
Morgan, Robert H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Burghley, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, William Shephard


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hartland, George A.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Burnett, John George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Munro, Patrick


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Heilgers, Captain F.F. A,
North, Captain Edward T.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nunn, William


Carver, Major William H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Connor, Terence James


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W)
Hornby, Frank
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Palmer, Francis Noel


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Patrick, Colin M.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B,
Pearson, William G.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hudson,Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peat, Charles U.


Christie, James Archibald
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Pike, Cecil F.


Colville, John
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Potter, John


Conant, R. J. E.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cooke, Douglas
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cooper, A. Duff
Ker, J. Campbell
Pybus, Percy John


Copeland, Ida
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Knebworth, Viscount
Ramsden, E.


Cross, R. H.
Law, Sir Alfred
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Crossley, A. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leckie, J. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Donner, P. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Drewe, Cedric
Levy, Thomas
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Liddall, Walter S.
Robinson, John Roland


Duggan, Hubert John
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ropner, Colonel L.


Eastwood, John Francis
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Rosbotham, S. T.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ross, Ronald D.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Llewellin, Major John J.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Elmley, Viscount
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Runge, Norah Cecil


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Salmon, Major Isidore
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stones, James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Sandeman, SI A. N. Stewart
Storey, Samuel
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Scone, Lord
Strauss, Edward A.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Weymouth, Viscount


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Sutcliffe, Harold
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Templeton, William P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wise, Alfred R.


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wragg, Herbert


Somerville, Annesley A, (Windsor)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Soper, Richard
Touche, Gordon Cosmo



Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Turton, Robert Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Adams, D, M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, George Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhougnton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Graham.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 28, line 5, to leave out from the word "flour" to the word "and" in line 7.
I understand that it will be convenient to discuss this Amendment and the next on the Paper—in line 8, to leave out the words "apply therefore or who." If the two Amendments were carried the paragraph would read:
The corporation shall make arrangements approved by the Minister for the registration of all millers of flour and for the removal from the register of the names of persons who have ceased to be millers of flour.
In moving this Amendment, I wish, now that we have reached the closing stages of these discussions to assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite of our sympathy with him after the remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He should take such comfort of mind as he can from the fact that the hon. Member for Torquay is well known to us as the watchdog of privilege and of private Members' rights, but he is the kind of watchdog who makes a lot of noise but does not bite. I do not think that the Minister need be intimidated by anything which he has said. We are very anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should accept this and the following
Amendment, because we believe that all millers should be in this Corporation. We conceive it possible that a sufficient number of millers might, of their own volition, remain outside and thus make the Corporation incomplete and perhaps unworkable. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any idea of a minimum percentage of membership with which he would be satisfied. but we believe that the membership should be a 100 per cent. membership and that millers should only be relieved from membership when they cease to be millers of flour in accordance with the terms laid down in the Bill. We believe that there should be no exemptions. It might be awkward if a large number of millers abstained from membership and the Corporation was found to be only faintly representative of the millers. If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that this change is not necessary in the Bill, we should like to have an explanation from him on this point, and, failing an explanation, we think that this Amendment ought to be made.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I must express my indebtedness to the hon. Member for his kindly references to me which I greatly appreciate. This Amendment deals with the question of the membership of the
Flour Millers' Corporation. I have felt all along that I did not wish to force the flour millers to go into the Corporation against their will. I anticipate that they will in fact go into the Corporation. On the other hand, I think it is important to note that failure to register with the Corporation will not exempt any miller from his liability under Clause 8, Subsection (4) to bear his share of any loss which may accrue to the Corporation in the purchase or disposal of stocks of unsold wheat under an order made by the Minister under Clause 1, Sub-section (4). Therefore, remaining outside the Corporation will not be any pecuniary advantage. On the other hand, failure to register will not deprive any miller of his share of any profit made on that transaction. All that we require is a nucleus of millers to work the machine and it does not follow that every individual should be in it. In these circumstances I think the Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened had I not gathered that some reference was made by the Mover of the Amendment to the hon. Member for Torquay. I wish to assure the Opposition that this Amendment does not interest me in the least, and that I should not dream of intervening on any Amendment which did not interest me if I did not see some purpose in doing so. They may rest assured that I shall not worry them on this Amendment.

Mr. MANDER: I feel that I must make some reference to the painful impression made upon loyal supporters of the Government on this side of the Committee by the manner in which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) intervenes and wastes the time of the Government. He has made the extraordinary suggestion that no supporter of the Government is entitled to move any Amendment, and—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That hardly arises on this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 28, line 31, to leave out the words "the last foregoing."
This and the next Amendment are merely to correct what I believe to be a
misprint or, rather, an error in paragraph 6, which talks about
millers registered in accordance with the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph"—
which has nothing to do with registration. It should be:
in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Schedule.
No doubt the Schedule has been through a somewhat tortuous existence, and at one time the "3" came next to the "6," but it does not now.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am indebted for this correction. It is obviously a mistake, and I accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 31, after the word "paragraph," insert the words "3 of this Schedule."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday, 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TANGANYIKA AND BRITISH HONDURAS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s. 8 of 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 46.)

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the word "dihydrohydroxycodeinone."
I merely move this Amendment in order to find out what is meant by this word. I also have an Amendment down, in line 15, to leave out the word "acetyl-
dihydrocodeinone." These are fairly simple words from the Greek point of view, but the Committee is entitled to know precisely what is meant when words of this length are put in a Bill. I congratulate the Home Office on putting in words of this kind rather than, as sometimes happens in Bills of this sort, short terms such as "H2O." I believe that these chemicals have something to do with opium.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I confess that I am rather puzzled to know why the hon. Member selected this particular drug for his dislike. It is a well-known drug, and he will recognise it when I tell him that it is the drug of which eukodal is the salt. There have been a number of cases of eukodal addiction. It is true that it is a long-winded word, but the hon. Member is the last man to object to that. The hon. Gentleman might have been a little deceived by the particular form that we have used in this Bill, and he might have recognised it easier under the more Continental description of dihydrohydro-oxycodeinone instead of the word used in the Bill. We thought, however, as we were a National Government, it would be better to use the ordinary English form. He may be interested to know that what he calls the short description of it would be C18H21O4H.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I thank the hon. Gentleman very sincerely for his explanation, and am glad he has undertaken some research in this matter. Before I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, may I be reassured that there is no disagreement in the Cabinet on this matter?

Mr. STANLEY: I can assure the hon. Member that I put forward this Bill after full consultation with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In these circumstances, may I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Amendment negatived.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out the word "acetyldihydrocodeinone."
This is a much simpler word, but I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if it is included in the Bill for the same reason as the former one? I understand it is one of the drugs which the League of Nations wish to see prohibited, and if that is so, I am quite willing for it to go in.

Mr. STANLEY: Acetyldihydrocodeinone is one of the drugs which the Health Committee of the League of Nations has recommended should be controlled. It is a drug which has only recently been placed on the market, and I am not surprised it has not yet come to the hon. Member's notice. It is liable to be used as a drug of addiction, and, in these circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In these circumstances, may I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 2 (Prohibition of trade, etc. in new drugs and power to apply Part 111 of principal Act with or without modifications to certain drugs), 3. (Amendment of s. 6 (2) of Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Act, 1923), 4. (Power to alter or revoke Orders or Declarations in Council) and 5. (Short title, extent, commencement and repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (CLEANSING OF SHELL-FISH) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Captain CROOKSHANK: With all due respect could not someone explain to us what this Bill is about?

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: This is a Bill to give local authorities power to lend money for the erection of tanks for the
cleansing of shell-fish. We have very valuable beds of mussels on the banks of several of our rivers, in particular the River Ribble. I am told by fishermen that they are worth several thousand pounds. Owing to Public Health Orders these beds of mussels are now closed as far as gathering mussels for human consumption is concerned. These tanks provide a very simple method of cleansing. The Ministry of Health have conducted experiments over several years, and those experiments have proved very successful. The cleansing process is a very simple one; in 48 hours the mussels cleanse themselves in fresh water. This Bill will find employment for a large number of fishermen, and now that we have a 10 per cent. duty on foreign mussels it is all the more important that this Bill should be passed.

Orders of the Day — FANCY JEWELLERY (STANDARD TRADE DESCRIPTIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

HON. MEMBERS: Object!

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I appeal to the hon. Gentleman who sits below me to withdraw his objection? For a very long time we have tried to get this Bill sent to Committee for examination. It has nothing to do with any present-day controversy. It is a Bill for giving a real meaning to certain trade terms which have no statutory meaning at present, and to stop a practice which favours the dishonest trader at the expense of the honest trader.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to respond to the appeal that has been made by my right hon. Friend.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Second Report of the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ESTIMATES.

First Report of the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.